People suffering from severe depression should be banned from purchasing/carrying guns

[darkangel218]

At least until their condition has been resolved.

I'm sorry, I support the second amendment. I just do not think firearms should be so readily available to just about anyone.

We do backgrounds for criminal activity, but do not care about the aplicant's mental state? That doesn't make much sense.

I hope things will change in the future. We can't afford losing so many innocent lives due to lax and careless gun control laws.

D.

[loyalsister]

1. Would you agree to having your medical records released

to prove that you do not\never have had any kind of mental condition?

[a la izquierda]

9. +1000

I sure as hell wouldn't.

[Kolesar]

14. People should only lug guns around in public if they establish a need

It should be a permit system. Local police who know that a dangerous creep is applying should be able to deny the permit.

A man in my town used to get drunk and claim he had enough guns to take on the Chester Police Dept. He murdered somebody and got a long stretch in the Ohio pen. All that was in the newspaper, btw

[hack89]

24. So the local police should have access to your medical records?

Or are you happy with them going with their gut feelings? What if your affliction is a dark skin or a "non-traditional" sexual orientation? Do you trust the police to put aside their personal prejudices?

[Kolesar]

33. A teenager died.

That particular gun nut killed the kid in his house. He claimed he was too drunk to remember what happened

[hack89]

54. So cops should have unlimited discretion to restrict civil liberties?

what is wrong with due process?

[Sunlei]

115. local police already do have 'discretion' that they abuse to bypass our 'civil liberties'

'I smell marijuana' is one famous discretion call

[hack89]

116. These threads always bring out the authoritarians

that are willing to trust the cops to protect our civil rights. The disconnect is jarring at times - they will vehemently condemn stop and frisk because they don't trust the cops to be unbiased and then turn around and say that the cops should be able to prevent people from getting guns because they know whether a person is a good guy or not.

[Kolesar]

147. You and your buddy have already deflected the discussion

Have a fun time doing more of this stuff on the internet today.

[hack89]

150. I directly addressed a point that YOU brought up

you are the one that wants to give cops the power to prevent people from buying guns. If you don't want to face the implications of your point of view then the problem is yours, not mine.

[passiveporcupine]

224. I have a mental illness

I suffer from chronic depression and I have tried to commit suicide. If I'd have a gun, I probably wouldn't be here today. I have no problem with seriously depressed individuals not having access to guns. But the cops should not be the ones who have access to our medical records. If a psychiatrist or therapist decides someone is in danger or dangerous to others, it should be their responsibility to inform the police to remove weapons from that person until they are deemed "safe". Just because you are depressed does not mean you would use a weapon against someone else (although some will)...but you might use it against yourself. I know there are other ways. I tried pills, because I don't have a gun.

So I have no problem with this discussion about guns and mental health, as it seems we have too many people with mental issues running around with guns and killing people.

We either remove the guns (which I'm thinking may never happen in this country) or we limit who gets to have one. And only a mental health expert should have the right to do that.

Lots of people with mental issues are perfectly safe with a gun, and there should not be a law that says mental health means no guns.

[hack89]

225. Only a judge can restrict a civil liberty

Police and doctors can give their inputs but only a judge in a courtroom can make the decision.

[passiveporcupine]

229. That may be part of the problem then

Holmes saw a psychiatrist at his school and she was worried about his mental health...but she never took it before a judge.

How do we fix that? I'm not sure a judge should be required in all cases...it seems to be a stumbling block in alerting to new dangers.

[hack89]

230. Taking away civil rights should be very hard

due process cannot be cast aside

[warrant46]

194. There are a few of them posing as Democrats here

A good percent of combat Vets couldn't go squirrel hunting. (PTSD etc)

But then these clowns who want to ban guns want the amerikan stasi police to call the shots ---that's progressive

[spin]

165. Your "may issue" carry permit system exists in several states and cities. ...

The major problem with the system is that it can lead to favoritism and/or discrimination. If you are a close friend of the local sheriff, one of his prime donors, rich or famous; you will have a far better chance of getting a carry permit than the average citizen.

You also suggest that in order to get a carry permit you should have to have a good reason.

My daughter once attracted the attentions of a stalker who had a police record of violence and drunkenness. She got a restraining order against this individual but he merely laughed at it and continued to follow her frequently. She often notified the local police but they insisted they would have to actually observe the violation before they could arrest him.

Under your system she would have had good reason to get a carry permit. Unfortunately she would have had to take a concealed weapons class and filed the paperwork. She might have got the permit in several months if she was lucky.

However my daughter already had a carry permit. While the guy approached her within arms reach several times, he never physically attacked her. Consequently she wisely never flashed her legally concealed weapon to discourage him which might have been considered illegal by the authorities.

My daughter merely viewed her stalker as a considerable pain in the ass. He probably enjoyed believing that he was terrorizing her. He also was busy stalking one of my daughter's friends who was scared to death of him. My daughter's friend was even afraid to get a restraining order against this man as she feared it might make him violent. Fortunately for her, she often spent several months at a time in Puerto Rico running a business she was part owner of.

The stalker was eventually arrested. I was a witness to the violation of the restraining order and appeared in court to testify against him. He had to spend five weekends in the local lockup which probably interfered with his drinking hobby. The judge warned him that if he was arrested again, he would spend a year in jail. He never violated the restraining order after.

The bottom line is that if we had been living in a "may issue" state, it is quite possible that my daughter would not have had a carry permit as she had no real reason to have one prior to being stalked. My daughter also was not real popular with the local elected officials as she used to attend the monthly meetings at the city hall and oppose their policies. Many people in our area tried to convince her to run for office. The people who run the small town we live in oppose any and all change.

[DrDan]

81. I am fine with that - as public safety is at stake

you want to own a gun - then you show you are mentally competent to do so

[Hip_Flask]

170. The cry to "public safety" is wearing pretty thin...

For reference please see the last 14 years... and beyond...

Next step is to claim that it's all "for the good of the children..."

[DrDan]

221. as is the cry for more guns . . . everywhere . . . for everyone

pretty thin

[Lizzie Poppet]

99. They don't need to be released to accomplish that.

Not "released" in the sense of being made available to any human agency, anyway. Records indicating a disqualifying condition could be made accessible to the NICS database, and the only thing anyone who's part of the potential purchase (or issuance of a CCW permit, etc.) process would know is "yes" or "no."

I'm a gun rights advocate, too (not always the most comfortable thing to be here), and I have no problem with expanding the mental-health-based criteria for disqualification.

[loyalsister]

119. Who decides what is a disqualifying condition?

What is a disqualifying condition?
Alcoholism? A history of alcoholism? A history of episodic grief triggered depression? Post partum depression with a suicide attempt......
Or the hysteria inspiring Autism spectrum?

[darkangel218]

125. I dont have the answer to that.

Probably in the end it won't work. I just wish there would be something we could do to stop those mass murders.

[warrant46]

196. Get out of the middle east would be a start

The drones are also committing mass murder

[Lizzie Poppet]

126. That seems like a psychiatric matter as much or more than a legal one.

I'd think that the determination of disqualifying conditions would fall to psychiatrists and possibly criminologists (and lawyers, since it would result in federal and/or local law). It's a complex matter, and I'm sure there is disagreement within each field, but I think a panel with the above expertise could craft a list that had solid scientific support.

[HereSince1628]

121. NICS = National Instant CRIMINAL background Check. The ill are not DE FACTO criminals

With the current federal push toward inter-agency cooperation and database sharing, what could go wrong with placing a person in a criminal database just because they were sick????

[Lizzie Poppet]

124. The database can incorporate that differentiation.

It can do so in a secure manner, as well. These are easily surmounted IT challenges, really...

But if there is enough objection to using the NICS database for this purpose, then a separate database for disqualifying conditions could be established. To me, that seems like an enormous waste of resources, and someone capable of overcoming data security measures within the NICS database wouldn't find it much more of a problem to get into this separate database...but whatever.

I don't disagree that associating the mentally ill with criminals isn't something that has to be avoided, and that there will be matters of data security to address (just like there already are with medical records, and an entire industry exists to address that specific challenge). But I think this is an effort worth making.

[HereSince1628]

142. It COULD but it DOESN'T

I think that should be a cause for slowing down and pondering that point.

Imagine a woman denied FOREVER a job teaching, because her name is included on a CRIMINAL background check because she had post-partum depression.

If you can grasp that. You can grasp the HUGE injustice that will follow calling people criminals for having depression...that usually resolves in 3 months.

[Lizzie Poppet]

155. Agreed. You couldn't just dump that data into it w/o significant changes.

As already stated, it would require a not-insignificant restructuring of the database. It would require extremely secure data "compartmentalization" of the sort that is already in place in the EMR (electronic medical records) world.

And also as already stated, these are very well-known IT security issues for which an entire very capable specialist industry exists. It would be a lot of work, but it work people know how to do.

[HereSince1628]

156. I was denied a teaching position because my 'record' included a misdiagnosis.

I suppose one could parse the meaning of misdiagnosis. I will say I was denied a potions because my name appeared on a detention which was withdrawn withing 12 hours.

I have personal experience with the reality that 'the system' is not capable of keeping up with reality.

[Marrah_G]

106. Actually they don't have to release all the records

They can run a script check and a Medical Information Background check. These reports can flag people with issues without divulging all their records.

[Sunlei]

113. in some cases Doctors are required to release medical records to authorities.

Don't think Doctors would have any problem at all with informing some agency of mental conditions if 'required' by law.

I remember reading recently the military also disarms Vets for some medical conditions.

[KamaAina]

128. Someone would have to agree to that

unauthorized release of medical records is a violation of HIPAA, the Health Insurance Privacy and Portability Act,

[louis-t]

228. If a doctor writes a prescription for anti-depressants

it should be reported to a database and that person should NOT be allowed to walk into a store and buy a gun. Sorry. I know the gun lovers' solution is more guns so someone can shoot the mentally disturbed person when they shoot up a theater, but that doesn't solve anything.

Flame away, I'm going home now.

[malaise]

2. Agreed

Rec

[Hoyt]

3. Oh no, gun folks say we must wait until something criminal happens.

Price we are supposed to pay to keep folks in guns, and we have to let them walk around with them.

[pipoman]

60. No, that would be SCOTUS

[safeinOhio]

63. So you agree with

with all SCOTUS verdicts over the last few years?

[pipoman]

72. It has been case law for decades

and has been reaffirmed by multiple courts.

[safeinOhio]

73. For over 200 years

it wasn't.

[pipoman]

78. Wrong

For the first 100+ years all rights were completely restored after someone "paid their debt to society" to the point of returning their guns upon release from custody. It wasn't until laws were established that permanently removed certain rights after a conviction that SCOTUS became involved.

[safeinOhio]

105. The individual right to own a firearm

was not up held by the courts until 2008. Before that, for over 200 years, it was not.

[pipoman]

110. Wrong again,

It was affirmed in 2008. It has been considered an individual right since the founding until wishful thinkers began to question it in the 20th century. Then SCOTUS avoided answering for a few decades until they could no longer avoid it.

[safeinOhio]

130. That might be wishful thinking for some.

For many, or even most, up until then it was considered a right for a well regulated militias, not an individual right on the Federal level.

[safeinOhio]

132. From cornell.law.edu

Wex
ALL PAGESARTICLESESPAÑOLINBOX PROJECTSEARCHFAQ
SECOND AMENDMENT

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.

In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.

This precedent stood for nearly 70 years when in 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290).


So, in 1939 the court said it was a collective right not an individual right and that held up until 2008. So, the court didn't duck the issue as you state in 1939.

Of course you are in titled to your own, or the NRA's opinion of legal history.

[pipoman]

160. Keeping in mind that the Miller decision

Has always been less than credible since Miller was dead at the time of the SCOTUS hearing. Obviously he wasn't there, nor was his legal counsel. The only side of the case heard was that of the US government. The decision would have been completely different if Miller had presented, imo...

[safeinOhio]

162. I'll keep that in mind.

So, like I said the only SCOTUS cases in favor of the individual right start in 2008 and are by the same 5 justices that passed the laws giving individual rights to companies and the case from a few days ago on donating $. Before that the individual rights were only given by states and not the Federal gov. as it looked as those rights as a collective right. Well over 200 years.

[pipoman]

178. Fantasy

There has never been a finding stating a collective right. There has never been a time in US history that the 2nd was enforced as a collective right. It was never claimed by anyone prior to the 1930's to be a collective right by anyone. None of the other amendments to the bill of rights has been found or claimed to be collective. There is zero evidence in any writings from the time that indicated it to be a collective right. The President and the Democratic party platform states it is an individual right.

Where is it again this silly lie came from? Oh, I remember,those who wish it wasn't included in the BoR.

[pipoman]

161. History is your friend

You will be hard pressed to find a single example of the collective right myth prior to the early 20th century.

[safeinOhio]

163. 1936 law on

cut off shotguns found that they were of no use in a military sense. It could have been argued that they were of benefit for personal protection.
Yes I like history.

[beevul]

167. No thats not what it said.

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

That's what it said.

Put in laymans terms, since no evidence was presented (miller was dead and not represented at this point), they could not say.

Not quite the same as what you claimed.


Edited to add this:

“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”

Justice Robert H. Jackson of the Supreme Court 1943

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is part of the bill of rights.

[Logical]

134. You are a irrational as any pro-gun poster! No logic, just whining! nt

[Hoyt]

135. And you love your gunz, to society's detriment.

[Logical]

140. Post a link! And I have dozens where I tear the NRA apart. You....

Are no help to fixing any issues, you love whining!

[NutmegYankee]

4. The last thing we need is another reason to stop people from seeking mental health care

What you propose is violating doctor-patient confidentiality for one of the most common mental health disorders in the country. Obviously this diagnosis would be reported to the government, which then would have to take some sort of action to enforce the ban, all subject to the freedom of information act. Way to publicize someone's private health information for a condition that in and of itself isn't dangerous to others. All this will do is cause people to NOT get the help they need.

[LuvNewcastle]

5. I agree. This is a very bad idea.

A lot of cases of "severe depression" are rather temporary. The government, especially the intelligence agencies, haven't been very good stewards of the information they've been entrusted with. Giving them confidential information regarding mental illnesses is just one more piece of information they need to come after you if they have a certain profile of suspects. All Americans need to ask themselves, are we going to have freedom, or are we going to have complete safety? We can't have both.

[Tribalceltic]

7. I Strongly agree

I suffered from depression in the 90's. I also worked a government job that would have been in jeopardy if my employer had found out. I had a medical background and knew that treatment could help. The only way I could keep my job, support my family and get treatment was to use a false identity and pay cash. Many people don't have that option.
Forcing the opening of medical record is wrong. I would not have sought treatment had I not been anonymous.
After 3 years we finally found an anti-depressant that worked without terrible side effects. It has worked ever since.
Also there are many varying degrees of depression, like other diseases such cardiac or diabetes. Not everyone who is "severely" (and I am guessing that you mean "clinical&quot depressed is going to shoot someone someday. Likewise, not every shooter is clinically depressed.

[a la izquierda]

11. I am on the anti-depressant Merry go round.

Luckily my employers wouldn't care if they found out. In fact, they'd probably be annoyed I didn't tell them.

Still, I don't want anyone having access to my records.

[LuvNewcastle]

28. I'm glad you're doing much better.

People don't understand that there is such a stigma regarding any mental illness that making people's records available to authorities would keep many people from seeking the treatment they need. A law like that would cause a lot more problems than it would alleviate.

[pipi_k]

107. So very

true!

I know one such person who will not seek any kind of counseling (even marriage) because he's afraid it will negatively impact his right to own a gun.

[YoungDemCA]

143. +10000

What a horrific idea.

[HuckleB]

153. Exactly.

This is an idea whose backfire is far worse than any possible benefits.

[ananda]

6. Also, if there's one thing we still need to learn ..

.. it's that medication doesn't work.

Our whole mental health system is itself deranged.

[Alkene]

16. +1 n/t

[davidpdx]

18. I agree with you about the US mental health system not being good

I disagree with you about medication working. Maybe it doesn't work for everyone, but for some people it is necessary.

[HERVEPA]

30. Just a very stupid statement. Medication works for many, probably most

people who avail themselves of it for depression.
Doesn't help for some. And yes, big Pharma is out to make a lot of money. They also make many drugs that drastically improve or save people's lives.

[DebJ]

79. My child would have been dead without them.

[pipi_k]

120. Mine too...

They didn't work for me...just made it all worse.

But my daughter's life was probably saved because they worked for her when she needed them.

[bettyellen]

109. Ridiculous. Sorry that in your case it is not true.

But for many- meds are a life saver.

[hunter]

111. "Off my meds" I'm an invisible homeless guy.

But it is true our whole mental health system is deranged.

I'm fortunate to have a safety net of family and friends. When I'm at my worst the very first thing that flies out the window is my ability to judge my own mental state. It always feels to me like the world is getting darker, not that my perception of it is getting darker.

Most mental health issues are much tougher to deal with than a twenty minute doctors appointment and a prescription.

In threads like these one thing I've got to say is that I do not understand Gun Fetishes. I've been in some rough situations and not once would me carrying a gun have improved the outcome. Once the guns come out, everything turns to shit.

I'm not anti-gun. Responsible hunting is a more ethical way to obtain meat than "factory farming." And sometimes a rancher is going to have to shoot a rabid racoon, etc..

I also know I'm not the sort who is a danger to himself and others if I have a gun, which is more than some supposedly "mentally healthy" people can claim.

I do not "like" guns. I tend to think something is wrong with people, their living situations, or their lifestyle, if a gun makes them feel more secure.

If it takes a gun to make you feel secure then there are probably some things you need to change in your life or your community.

[fizzgig]

114. maybe they didn't work for you

but they have for many, myself included. i notice you haven't answered any replies to your idiotic statement.

[Blue_Tires]

157. Properly prescribed and managed by a competent health professional,

I'd say medication has a very high success rate...

[steve2470]

231. so very correct nt

[Dorian Gray]

8. I wish

that we had the same gun laws that the UK had. (No guns for the general population.)

While I am sympathetic with your OP proposal, I think it would be problematic in execution. Medical records, meant to be private, would need to be read for licensing.

[Jeneral2885]

12. Hmmm

that would be impossible but a plausible argument.

[yeoman6987]

57. Just the rich?

The Royal family have guns. Is that what you really want for America?

[DrDan]

82. only for those that want to own a gun - I have no problem with that

[darkangel218]

83. Not really

We could have the PCP of the aplicant check the record and sign off that the aplicant is fit to own a gun.

It's not perfect by any means, but it would be a step forward from what we have now.

[oldhippie]

92. What Primary Care Provider?

I'm 65 years old and I don't have and never had a "PCP". I get whatever doc happens to be on duty when I walk into my local clinic. The doctors usually last less than a year before they move on to other jobs. And, there is nary a word about my mental health in any of my medical records. What doctor in his right mind (or their liability insurance company) is going to "sign off" on something like getting a gun? The safe thing for them is to say no.

How about this: Everyone (including you) is required to take an annual mental health exam conducted by a panel of "government expert doctors". You, of course, would be required to pay for this exam with your insurance, and pay the deductible and copay as usual. Depending on the results of the exam, you may or may not be allowed to possess a weapon. And while they're at it, they can determine whether you are fit to write any books or articles, post on the internet, and perhaps even vote. Afterall, do we want people with mental illnesses influencing the public?

[darkangel218]

93. So you think doing nothing is better than doing something?

Yah, I've heard that before.

[oldhippie]

103. In many cases, yes .....

.... especially in cases like yours, endangering people's civil rights.

[Heddi]

200. Down below she says that limiting the voting rights of people w/depression is "good point"

that she wishes she had an answer for (screen cap'ed to preserve once the inevitable self-delete comes around)

[hack89]

108. What if the doctor always says no because he really hates guns?

what recourse would the applicant have?

Why does due process seem to bother you to the point that you completely ignore it?

[Jeneral2885]

10. How do you check

How you gun shop owners check? Documents can be falsified or the individual can call up any rights bill/clause to say I won't tell you. Plus, depends on the gun you want to buy.

I'm not in favour of having guns sold to military individuals at all.

[DustyJoe]

22. yes how

How do you prove a 'military' individual ?

Are you proposing only active military ? All veterans ? Xbox 'call of duty' enthusiasts ?

Military and ex-military are highly trained in firearm discipline compared to a thug on the
street with his glock 9.

Broad brushes always paint everyone.

[darkangel218]

84. Yes documents can be falsified.

However, since all medical data is ( will be ) kept electronically now, there could be a system set up which verifies eligibility without giving out any other sensitive information about the aplicant's health.

[HereSince1628]

98. What's the point of checking? Mental health status is dynamic. It changes

It's not some sort of decree from God written on unchanging stone tablets.

A background check is only valid re the database in the moment it is made. And most mentally ill persons will never seek treatment and never have a record that could put their name in the database.

Even assuming mental wellness at the time of purchase...you can acquire the gun, acquire a permit to carry it (concealed or open), and in at some unspecified time later be struck with a mental illness.

The rationale for this is terribly dubious with respect to durable utility.

[The Straight Story]

13. Ok. How do we know and second what happens when they buy a gun and are depressed later?

Back when I did armed security I had to buy a gun for the job as some sites, especially government owned properties, required the security officers to carry one (and being alone in an abandoned apart complex in a bad neighborhood, no phone, working alone - you wanted one). After leaving the job I sold it back to the company and don't currently own one.

Some time after that I battled with depression (as I had once before and had seen a psych dr, got meds, got better). Should I go back to security work should I not be allowed to carry a gun?

When I was a deputy I can pretty much guarantee that there were more than a few of them depressed and seeing the dr we had available. And folks in the military are not always the least depressed folks I know.

The people I am most worried about with guns are those who drink a lot (and a lot of crime is related to alcohol consumption) and those who have a criminal record involving theft/violence (or felonies in general).

[HereSince1628]

100. Very true, and mostly overlooked

[Sancho]

15. Gun Control and mental health (see #2)

This is my generic response to gun threads. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70’s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that weren’t secured are out of control in our society. As such, here’s what I now think should the requirements to possess a gun. I’m not debating the legal language, I just think it’s the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because it’s clear that they should never have had a gun.

1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a renewable license.
2.) To get a license, they should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learner’s license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home.
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability policy insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) outside of home or when transporting it to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.).
9.) All guns should be registered. If you buy, sell, give away, inherit, or the gun changes hands by any other transaction, the registration should be recorded. Ammunition should be tagged.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process (if ever).

Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a driver’s license you need a license to fish, rent scuba equipment, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.

[pipoman]

20. ...

[Sancho]

34. I remember reactions like this...

to people over 18 having the right to vote...to integrating schools...to letting women in the military (and letting women in the military academies)...and so many other things that folks said were "impossible". As I've gotten older and wiser, I have come to realize that unicorns are real (sometimes).

If there's a will there's a way, and licenses are clearly legal and possible. To me, it takes strange values to think it's ok for mentally/emotionally unstable people to possess guns. I have enough experience with guns to think that's one thing we could do better.

[pipoman]

41. Not legal nor possible at the federal level

Everyone. ..Every one goes through periods of mental and emotional instability.

[Sancho]

168. Who said it has to be a federal law...tell me who has a driver's license without a vision test???

Exactly what state issues a driver's license to people who are blind? It's not a federal law, but every state requires that you can see to drive!!

Same thing..you should be cleared as apparently stable and able to possess a gun. You don't need a medical diagnosis, but requiring a simple clearance is legal and possible.

Everyone has changes in their vision too, but once they are legally blind the MD can tell them not to drive, and there is likely a vision test at the DMV. The DVM doesn't diagnose what their prescription or vision is...but checks to see if they can read the signs.

If a professional interviews you or tests you or sees you at the ER for a suicide attempt or arrests you for domestic violence, they should be able to take your gun license and your guns away from you!!

[pipoman]

179. You do know driving isn't constitutionally protected?

The same could be said about voting then? You need a license, and a mental evaluation? The comparison between driving and an enumerated civil liberty is ludicrous.

It can be state mandate. ..good luck with that.

[Sancho]

185. My suggestion is constitutional....you have a carry permit don't you?

If so, then my version is simply a different version of a carry permit.

Do you think the 2nd or 5th amendment allow you to have any "arms" that you want? Can you have a nuclear bomb legally or should that be illegal?

If there is ANY limit, then I'm suggesting that the limit should be that unstable people shouldn't have a gun.

If you prefer, we could put a psychologist at every point of gun purchase and interview you every time you bought a bullet...which would be legal even though it avoids producing a license.

Which would you prefer...a license that you are cleared, or reinterview at every sale? It is silly to continue to argue that it's not constitutional to have limits...and my limit is that you shouldn't have a gun if you are unstable.

Do you agree or not? If you think that unstable people shouldn't have guns, then there are other ways to achieve the result, but the logical way is a license. You can argue all you want, but it's simple, legal, and practical. It allows for variation by locality, and it helps prevent the mentally and emotionally ill from killing themselves and YOU!

[pipoman]

187. No a diagnosis does not equal due process of law...

Due process is required to strip someone of their civil liberties. States certainly can require things the federal government can not. This is only to a point as is evidenced by Heller and the Chicago case.

Neither. NICS is fine and is as good as it gets.

No, I don't agree that anyone should be stripped of their civil liberties without due process.

[Eleanors38]

29. "Not debating the legal language." Like the 5th?

[Sancho]

31. It's obvious that the legal language could be crafted if folks wanted to...

and this has nothing to do with the 2nd - since I focus on the people who would possess guns, not restricting any particular gun. Sometimes gun advocates want to get caught up in silly debates over legal definitions. Licenses are clearly constitutional and every state has their versions.

The only question is whether or not our society wants to be safe or continue to be a shooting gallery.

If you think it's ok for mentally and emotionally ill people, children, and untrained people to carry guns, then you would be opposed to reasonable licensing for gun possession. Of course, you will live in a more dangerous world.

[The Straight Story]

37. No....I think the problem comes in here:

"If you think it's ok for mentally and emotionally ill people"

Who gets to define that? Over the years we have seen many things called mental illnesses because people were different than the statistical norm.

BTW - ever watch those shows about people living in Alaska out in the middle of nowhere? Pretty much loads of people carry guns there due to the wild life. Not to mention hunting. Should a person with past mental issues not be allowed to hunt for their own food and be forced only to purchase their food?

Less than one percent of gun owners cause problems. Of those, many more would involve alcohol than mental illness.

[Sancho]

61. I used to live in Alaska, and in past years I was a mental health professional.

It's not a problem to create definitions of mental and emotional health. Again, your story isn't relevant to the issue. Yes, if you are dangerous you should get food some other way than shooting it! Yes, if you have past mental health issues they might keep you from ever owning guns. If you have active TB, you should not be allowed to be a bus driver or sell hot dogs at a ball stadium until you are deemed safe.

Regardless, I'm not requiring a "medical diagnosis" in order to get a license. I'm suggesting a simple screening.

If you get a driver's license, you likely have to pass a vision test. The DMV are NOT optometrists but you still have to be able to read the signs. I'm suggesting a simply screening/interview/examination and background check by someone with a little training and aimed at obvious potential issues for gun abuse.

I'm also suggesting that professionals could revoke or prevent someone from possessing a gun or a license to posses a gun. Sooooo, if you had such a license and were at the ER for attempted suicide or getting treatment for depression or whatever; then you could have a hold put on your guns and your license revoked.

It would not catch everyone and people change, but MANY of the recent mass shootings were by people would be obviously denied a gun license by almost any screening process.

[The Straight Story]

64. Ok, give me some examples of questions you would ask in screening someone (nt)

[Sancho]

70. That's simple, but I'm not going to pretend to be a current expert.

First, you would fill out a social, medical history on a page or two that would guide the interview questions.

If you reported you were an air force veteran, a gun safety instructor, working as an airline pilot, and had annual medical examines I would ask different questions than if you reported that you recently were released from rehab, just got out of prison, and were very angry at your neighbor who was beaming x-rays at your bedroom. I'd ask about what you put down in your history.

Next, there would be standard general questions like "Are you planning to kill yourself?", "What do you intend to do with your gun?", etc. If necessary, the answers might lead to referral to some treatment or a more extensive review (like interviews with family or friends), diagnostic testing, or a medical records request, but this would be an initial screening for obvious issues.

We all know that people can hide illnesses, but it's less common than you'd think. There are plenty of projective devices and personality tests to diagnose specific problems, but the main idea here would be to catch those who were clearly a danger to themselves or others.

I'm sure that whatever state license was created would dictate a process, just like you have to pass a vision test, driving test, and written test in order to drive. You have to pass an open water test with a certified instructor in order to rent scuba equipment (in Florida at least). My imaginary interview would not necessarily be whatever each agency would come up with.

[beevul]

169. Would that license also permit public carry? N/T

[Sancho]

171. A public carry permit is really a license...

As I said, I wouldn't care if you had a nuclear bomb in your basement or a 50 cal in your truck provided that you have a license/permit/certificate that showed you were safe for yourself and others. That might mean you can't have a rocket launcher unless you have specific a need and training.

If you have lots of training, screening, checking, and examination, then you can have whatever you want. If you don't have training and you are not stable and you do not need a nuclear bomb, then you shouldn't have a license/permit/certificate to possess it.

Personally, I'm sure that most people with carry permits don't have the training or experience or need to have guns in their pocket so that should be tightened up; but a carry permit is nothing more than a license in effect.

I think that we shouldn't allow people to buy or possess guns without a license that requires training, background checks, and mental health screening among other things. That would prevent some unqualified people from easy access to guns.

[beevul]

173. You're missing the point.

With the examples you've chosen to compare - drivers license - one is referring to a license to use in public, not a license to own.

Nowhere in America, is one required to aquire a license simply to own a motor vehicle, or an airplane, or even a tank for that matter. In fact, other than a a few cities city here or there, generally speaking, there are no licenses to own pretty much anything.

That makes the comparison false.


Furthermore, what you're talking about, is a license to exercise a constitutionally protected fundamental civil right.

Such things generally don't fly.

That's not to say there isn't a way to accomplish the goals you've stated, but your methodology wont do it.

[pipoman]

43. lol

Suggesting laws with no debates over legal definition? Not a lawyer, eh?

[Sancho]

55. no..it's a problem already solved....

and you are free to look at licensing law for federal and all 50 states...so I'm not falling for your straw man.

If you think that mentally and emotionally unstable people should have guns, then say so.
That's simple.

No system is foolproof, and we all know that privacy, etc. would be an issue. OTOH, we also know that if you have TB and refuse treatment and you want to be a bus driver, that you could be quarantined by force to protect the public. Withhold your name if you like, but public safety precludes you getting loose. An individual's rights can be curtailed if there's a public danger.

We also know you have to have a license to participate in many activities.

If you want a legal debate, go find your favorite lawyer. I'm saying we need to value human lives enough to have practical safeguards and a license to possess a gun is the logical way to achieve some improvements.

[pipoman]

58. What percentage of people with TB

Are a public danger? I suspect it is much higher than 1%.

Licensing at the federal level has been determined unconstitutional.

People who have criminal intent are known to disregard the law.

Depression is temporary and comes on quickly. Licensing would have no measurable effect.

[Sancho]

66. Again, you're missing the point....

it would likely be versions of state licenses, but debating the constitutionality is not a problem here. Obviously, licenses are legal in all 50 states and required for people to engage in some activities. States already have carry permits and reciprocity, so we know gun licenses are legal and have a federal impact.

The percentage would not matter. It would prevent some mass shootings, suicides, etc. We don't know the impact until we try it.

Licensing would have a measurable effect on some people with mental/emotional problems. Many of those (like the recent mass shootings) were known to be unstable - but there was no mechanism to prevent them from buying or possessing guns.

It would not catch everyone (of course).

Just like having a license whenever you drive (even if out of state), you'd have to have a current license to buy, transport, or possess a gun. Simple. Probably proof of insurance too. Criminals would find it much harder to keep guns, buy ammo, etc. but this part of the OP is about screening for mental and emotional worthiness to have a gun.

You may even have a diagnosis (like a phobia; fear of flying) and be completely fine to be licensed to possess a gun. I suggesting a simply screening and background check for obvious issues. Not a complete psychoanalysis.

[pipoman]

69. States can, feds can't..

Given the vast case law, you are fantasizing, so I guess it's OK to make believe that the vast case law doesn't exist. .carry on. .

[Sancho]

88. Case law on licensing? Is your driver's license ok in more than one state?

Again, there is nothing that would prevent a state from issuing a license. Obviously, there are a multitude of cooperative agreements for licensing among all the states. You can drive across states even though they differ in the licensing process.

There is no "federal" driver's license, but all states adhere to federal law. You cannot have a driver's license that prohibits a specific race or religion from obtaining a license.

It would be the same with gun licenses I suspect. Again, the issue is NOT one of how to create a license. The lawyers and legislatures know how to do that...the issue is how to prevent PEOPLE from possessing guns when they clearly should not have them. That is not a restriction on guns - you can have any kind of gun you want - as long as there's a reasonable protection for the public good. That's one purpose of a license.

[Eleanors38]

44. The 5th underwrites All laws affecting ones rights.

Whether or not gun types are the subject or not. Since the end of apartheid-era laws in the South, the courts are sensitive to restrictions, taxes, tests, lack of due process, and outright subterfuge when they affect rights, esp. regarding those protected by the Second.

[Sancho]

91. A license is a reasonable way to protect the public...

that's one reason we have all kinds of licenses - from professional practices to driving to renting scuba equipment. Some protect the public and some simply protect folks from their own stupidity.

There's absolutely no question that some people should not have guns...kindergarten kids, some mentally/emotionally ill people, and untrained people. The logical way to achieve a screening is a license. No fuss, no muss.

[NutmegYankee]

188. How about a license for voting?

You so actively support the use of licenses and tests to engage in a civil right, so why not force people to take a test to be allowed to have a voting license? Or how about speech? No internet access without a license?

What you fail to understand is that driving is a privilege, unlike the other topics I mentioned, which are civil rights.

[Sancho]

192. We have that now…it's called voter registration….

and it's controlled by states and required by each state independently.

You can call it whatever you want, but voter registration is constitutional, and having requirements to posses a gun is quite possible. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Now, please answer my question. Do you think mentally and emotionally unstable people should have a gun?

If not, would you prefer to get screened every time you buy a bullet or go to shoot a gun (like at the airport)? Wouldn't you prefer a registration/permit/license/certificate/whatever-you-call-it that is required to screen out the problem people?

Your choice!!! The ball is in your court. What would you prefer?

[NutmegYankee]

195. Fail - voter registration is not a license. Try again.

You only register to ensure one person one vote. There is no qualification or suitability test.

[tolkien90]

159. I'm not going to reply to most of these points

Because a majority of them have been shown not to work, are illogical to begin with, or have been discredited elsewhere in this thread.

But as for number 5, I just couldn't let that go.

So let me get it straight. You want to make it harder and more difficult for poor people, the same group of people that are statistically more likely to be victims of violent crime, to get a gun and defend themselves? Sounds like a good idea if you want to jack up the crime rate because I can guarantee you the people committing those crimes won't bother with firearms liability insurance.

You are basing your entire firearms policy list on incidents that make up a small minority of firearm-related crimes, probably because they usually make the headlines.

[NutmegYankee]

189. Insurance for gun ownership has been completely discredited.

Connecticut held a hearing on it after Sandy Hook and every insurance company representative called to the hearing stated that no insurance company would grant a policy covering intentional misuse of a firearm. The only policy that would be covered was a general liability policy, which is already standard for most homeowners, protecting them in case someone slips on their porch for instance.

[pipoman]

17. Short sightedness

You do realize that 100% of the population suffer depression at some point in their lives, no?

[davidpdx]

19. The problem would be privacy laws

The US has pretty strict privacy laws in terms of medical records. Those are there for a good reason.

I agree mental health issues need to be dealt with in a better way. The shootings have become too common of an occurrence.

I have no answers on how things can be changed. The question is a complex one.

[Nanjing to Seoul]

21. cue gun humpers attacking your op in 5,4,3,2,1

[hack89]

26. Castle Bansalot is the dissent free zone

In GD we are supposed to discuss things, which implies some degree of disagreement.

[pintobean]

47. I think they just

love that phrase, and look for any opportunity to use it.

[pipoman]

45. Que the shortsighted and legally challenged idealists...

Oh, wait. ..

[YoungDemCA]

144. This OP still supports the 2nd Amendment

The OP is just singling out those who suffer from depression or other mental illness.

Meanwhile, there are plenty of criminals-murderers and others-who either do not suffer from depression (I didn't realize, for example, that being a sociopath was equal to being depressed!) or go un-diagnosed. How do you propose dealing with them?

This is just a way of feeling superior to those who suffer from mental illness, and externalizing the blame for the epidemic of gun violence on a vulnerable group within society. Stigma, anyone?

[egduj]

152. This would have been really witty...

if it wasn't posted two and a half hours after the OP and after 20 replies.

It's called "timing."

[Nanjing to Seoul]

215. living 8000 miles away and 15 time zones makes punctual responses a bit hard

[NutmegYankee]

191. Ah, so people supporting the 4th Amendment and Medical privacy are gun humpers?

Some of the proposals in this thread are 1984 level creepy. I guess it's NSA lovers vs. Gun humpers here on DU. Glad you cleared that up for us.

[Eleanors38]

23. We have the 5th Anendment which guarantees due process...

If some "test" or "evaluation" bars someone from exercising his/her 2A rights, that individual must have due process in a court of law to justify that revocation of a right. A test doesn't allow that.

And what would the "standard(s)" be for denying a constitutional right? How would these "standards" be applied? And WHO would develop and enforce them?

We already have a NICS test which uses a mental incompetency bar... which is determined in a court of law. That NICS test needs to be expanded beyond the purview of licensed gun dealers (FFLs).

[pipoman]

59. Hey...you are breaking the rules of outrage...no legal facts allowed here...

[HereSince1628]

67. Don't forget the 14th

Denial of rights is a HUGE problem recognized by the nation across its history and incorporated into the constitution and its amendments to reflect the will of society.

A diagnoses of a mental disorder does NOT remove citizenship or constitutional protections afforded citizens.

Does it seem just a little bit strange that NICS = National Instant CRIMINAL background check, and BEING A VICTIM OF A MENTAL DISORDER IS NOT A CRIMAL OFFENSE??

As long as the US and the 50 states and sundry territories, treat mental illness as a crime, this problem can never be addressed rationally.

[Eleanors38]

131. Yep. W/out 14A the Civil Rights Movement would have been handicapped.

[Android3.14]

25. Thought police.

What a misguided OP.
The solution is gun titles (like a car) annual gun registration (for a fee) as long as a person owns the gun, tax the shit out of ammo, severely limit access to assault weapons.
Medical confidentiality is between me and my doctor.
The NSA is bad enough. We don't need an MSA.

[Eleanors38]

36. Illinois had a firearms owner I.D. (FOID) for yrs...

Any excess tax on ammo WILL be seen in the courts as a kind of Jim (large, raucous black bird)-era burden on the free exercise of constitutional rights, a la poll taxes in Texas 50+ yrs ago.

Semi-auto weapons are the most popular choices for Americans when they obtain weapons (many millions a year), and an entire class of weapons will not be banned (I have one built in 1905).

Expansion of NICS, issuance of FOID cards & similar measures may be the way to go. Why the NICS test (required by FFLs) is not opened to all private transactions at least on a voluntary basis, is strange to me.

[Android3.14]

117. Jim crow burden?

Perhaps. Yet the gov taxes my newspaper sales and that doesn't seem to infringe on the freedom of the press.

[Eleanors38]

129. Are those taxes (and postal rates) higher than for other

goods and services? Guns & ammo are already subject to comparable sales taxes, and federal taxes for wildlife conservation (the latter is included as part of the retail price of the item purchased, and disbursal is back to the states). ANY tax, like the now-unconstitutional poll tax enacted in Texas, will be subjected to strict scrutiny if it is a barrier to the exercise of a constitutional right, or singles out a class of people.

Various Jim ---- laws affected gun ownership in the South. In addition to requiring a local sheriff "means test" (literacy test?) Your need for a gun, some states required specific very expensive brands be bought, used melting point laws, or required fees, all in an attempt to keep blacks from obtaining guns; trouble is, there are a lot of poor whites in the South, so some of these schemes were repealed. The laws against carrying guns became popular at the end of the 19th Century to thwart the practice of blacks arming themselves in job-related situations (RRs, naval stores industries, lumber mills, etc.). The South through the 1970s retained some of the strictest CCW laws. Ironically, the Civil Rights Act ('65) and the backlash to early days of modern gun control efforts put an end to that, at least in the South. Efforts to restrict CCW began and ended mainly in Florida.

[hack89]

27. So you support a national data base of mental health patients? Nt

[Kolesar]

35. It's tricky, so there should be a bias against gun-lugging in any "permit application"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4773842

Do you carry cash or jewels in your "profession"?

[pipoman]

48. Of course the only people who need self defense are those who

Carry cash and jewels....Oh wait, I can't think of the last time I heard of someone robbed carrying jewels...

[hack89]

56. The beauty of civil rights is that you never have to justify exercising them to the government.

Yours is a system ripe for abuse - look at places where "may issue" is the law - only the rich, the famous, the politically connected and people with the right color skin have guns. NYC and California are prime example.

How many blacks in the South do you think will ever be able to legally own guns?

[maddezmom]

32. Not sure this would work anyway as there are many people suffering from depression

That have never sought treatment or have been diagnoised. And where do you stop, what about people that have in their past or are now abusing alcohol?

[HereSince1628]

38. People aren't born with depression...it is a condition that can begin at any time and it goes away

Last edited Thu Apr 3, 2014, 08:20 AM - Edit history (1)

Including AFTER a person has bought a weapon and/or AFTER a person has permit to carry...if that's needed (in WI open carry doesn't require a permit while conceal carry does).

About 6 1/2% of the US population experiences depression each per year. You can see from the CDC graphic below that it has a somewhat higher incidence in Americans 40-60.



According to Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA http://psychopathology.wiki.westga.edu/file/view/JAMA-2003-Kessler-3095-105.pdf/229631240/JAMA-2003-Kessler-3095-105.pdf)

About 50% of people who get depression suffer 'severe' or 'very severe depression. The average duration of the depression is about 16 weeks, and that's important, people get over depression.

Approx. half of people with with depression ever get diagnosed. For the purposes of the NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK, that' a problem. Each year about 10 million people with depression would be MISSED. And the majority of the ~10 million people that would be entered...would no longer be depressed in 3 months. Do we just keep people on the system because "Well, hell they could get depressed again?"

The life-time risk of depression in the US is slightly above 16%. You're talking about wanting to put the names of 56 million people in a criminal database, NOT because they've done something criminal, but because they've suffered from the most common mental illness. People misunderstand mental illness and think most mentally ill people are dangerous to self or others. That's not true.

BUT you can't actually get 56 million people's names on record because more than half of the people who might be reported based on FBI surveillance of patient medical or prescription medication never seek clinical help. They don't have records subject to surveillance.

The greatest risk of gun violence among the depressed is suicide. About 60% of gun deaths in the US are suicides, and depending on what time reference you choose it is about 16000 deaths per year. It is certainly a problem. But it's uncertain that adding the depressed to NICS would really solve the problem. Creating a database of 40 million depressed persons costs a lot of money to produce a lot of data that is not going to be very predictive of future gun violence. Each person in the database would have a per capita risk of gun suicide of 0.00045 per year. The American Psychological Association says they have no way of telling WHICH people with diagnosed mental illness will commit acts of violence.

In the end it's a lot of money for the database, some serious invasion of private medical histories, for dubious rationales, yielding very little predictive value.

Although it's still argued, suicide has been considered an impulsive act. And as shown by reductions in gun suicide rate when waiting periods are imposed, the impulsiveness can be beaten by delaying delivery of a handgun. Impulsiveness passes in a very short time. Depression typically resolves in several months (notwithstanding some cases of depression last more than 12 months).

Considering the weaknesses of the database both in coverage and predictive value, it seems that WAITING PERIODS remain one of the best methods for reducing gun suicides in the depressed.

[maddezmom]

40. Thank you for this post

[geckosfeet]

39. How about we make mental health available to anyone anytime?

[HereSince1628]

50. Sounds good, but most people with resources don't seek clinical help for mental illness

Perceived prejudice against the mentally ill runs very high in our society. Difficulties dealing with social stigma approaches can have as much impact on their activities of daily life as do the mental illnesses.

The mentally ill are frequently considered 'weak' and/or 'character flawed. Machismo typically wins over seeking mental health care. Alcohol and illicit drugs are readily available for self-medication, and they are way cheaper than 2nd and 3rd generation anti-depressants.

The choices often appear to be getting treatment vs shame, losing respect of friends, coworkers, and employers, ending chances for career advancement and perhaps being dismissed from your job.

In the end, "toughing it out through difficulty times" is more favorably endorsed by society, family, and friends.

[geckosfeet]

51. Yes - the stigma must be removed. This is especially prevalent in the military.

[sweetapogee]

42. People suffering from severe depression should be banned from purchasing/carrying guns...

they already are banned from purchase:

SF 4473 asks the question:

Line 11e: Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?

Line 11f disallows those from purchasing if they have been committed or have any mental defect.

Answer yes to 11e or f and you will get a negative response from your NICS check. Answer no if the true answer is yes, expect to be arrested.

[Eleanors38]

49. Was "marijuana" dropped as a disqualifier from 4473

[sweetapogee]

52. google the form,

see it with your own two. Some here might be surprised what disqualifies a purchaser.

take care my friend.
sa

[pipoman]

53. ..

Answer no if the true answer is yes, expect to be arrested.

last I knew less than 5% of people who lie on the 4473 are even investigated. ..

[sweetapogee]

65. maybe

maybe not. A true general statement is: lie on the 4473, become a felon. Don't forget, SF 4473 is a federal form, the NICS is a federal system. States define things differently from the federal standard. The ATF is the investigator here.

A good question to ask is why doesn't the ATF investigate anything less than 100% of the bogus answers to SF 4473? Seems like they could get a lot of gunz off the streets if they did.

[pipoman]

75. I have advocated investigation of NICS denials for years

this is one of the issues oft disregarded by gun control advocates, enforcement of existing laws. I am a believer that simply enforcing existing law would reduce gun violence more effectively than any new unenforced law ever would.

[kelliekat44]

46. That would mean that the 90% of gun-hugers who are depressed because Obama is President

would have to turn in their guns.

[aikoaiko]

62. There does need to be a better mechanism for separating guns from people who are a danger...

...to themselves or others above and beyond the existing adjudication mechanism, but there does need to be due process, accountability, and reversibility.

[darkangel218]

86. I agree.

[HereSince1628]

101. But, that's a pipedream. The American Psychological Association says there isn't a way to do it.

I don't have a problem with NIMH coughing up research dollars to try to find protocols that work. But, there's a high probability of failure in that effort, and low expectations of being able to project who's .000000457% risk of violence will be realized.

[The Straight Story]

68. Came across this a bit ago here on the local news:

Should Selling Firearms Require A Background Check?

Right now, background checks are only required for persons wishing to purchase a gun -- not for sellers.

"I would love to see a data base where we could plug in a serial number and know whether that gun was stolen or not so we could alert the authorities" said Eric Delbert with the L.E.P.D. Firearms and Range on Bethel Road.

Delbert says there is no way for his employees to know if a firearm brought into his store to be sold is stolen. He says he would like to see a database created that could validate the serial number from each firearm.

"There's guns out there that have been stolen years ago that keep getting sold and resold because there's no way to check to see if that gun has been stolen at some point," said Delbert.

http://www.nbc4i.com/story/25148741/should-selling-guns-include-a-background-check

[pipoman]

71. Nonsense

Any law enforcement agency can, and most will, run a serial number through NCIC. I have done it several times.

[sweetapogee]

74. this post

is confusing background checks on individuals and FFL holders with gun registration. Regardless of where you stand on gun control, the premise here is not an honest one. Sorry if that offends.

[The Straight Story]

76. It is related in that

the discussion is about keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't be using them. There is no one solution so an open discussion covering various aspects and failure points is part of it all.

Smaller steps to fill in gaps where needed versus one overall emotionally based attempt at solving a problem will go a long way in reducing guns in the hands of people that no one wants to have them (ie, criminals).

[sweetapogee]

85. except...

and not to labor over the point, but, an individual who wants to purchase a firearm doesn't have to purchase one that was stolen or used to commit a crime even if there is future criminal intent. There are millions of legal firearms for sale out there. Another point, when cities have buy back events, they don't run SN checks on the guns, at least at the point where an arrest could be made. A perfect way to get rid of evidence. and get some money at the same time.

How often do you think the police have the SN of a gun used in a crime but don't have the gun in their posession? I would guess probably somewhere around never.

[Paladin]

77. Hey, Gun Enthusiasts! Never mind all this!

Chuck Toad just made an on-air reference to the Ft. Hood shooter's weapon being a .45 Smith & Wesson automatic! Well, don't just stand there---go apoplectic!

[hack89]

226. Why? Nt

[CTyankee]

80. well, this has brought out the usual suspects. But don't ask them what we can do about

the proliferation of guns and their damage to our population. Their answer always ends up being a shrug and "nothing." According to these folks, we just have to put up with the status quo of gun violence in this country.

You remember the slogan of the Seabees, "Can do"? With this crowd it's always "No can do" and What a testament to American ingenuity...

[giftedgirl77]

87. Typically in a military situation if the Command knows

someone is a threat to themselves or others the weapons can be taken & locked up in the arms room. However, this can only be done if the doc says it's necessary, the command knows about the weapons, & the Soldier lives on post. They could only keep them until they are cleared by the docs then they would have to give them back. If the Soldier lives off post it's a whole other ballgame but typically we have asked for the keys to gun safes etc if they were going through rough patches.

[KittyWampus]

89. There's a valid issue here- mental health and guns can lead to tragedy.

But I think the solution is in increasing mental health services, improving the quality of those services and reducing social stigma attached to mental health problems.

I also think society has a "Violence Culture" that is very ingrained and very difficult to acknowledge and talk about.

[HereSince1628]

104. 2 things

1) Currently fear of prejudice is as important than access to mental health services. There is no reason to believe entrepreneurs would not add services if there was money to pay for them. Money is tremendously important. Current responses of Colorado to the Aurora shooting are frozen, because entrepreneurs who want the money are fighting over it.

2) The handful of studies in the past 25 years on violence in the mentally ill have all made the same point. The difference in violence between the mentally ill and the general population is almost neglible. Multipliers of violence among the mentally ill include drug abuse and incarceration. Generally speaking about 5 percent of people in society are violent each year. Violence among the mentally ill is about 7% and the observed increase is likely to mostly be due to increased reporting of violent acts by persons in institutions because of high surveillance and required reportage.

[dionysus]

133. i think "Violence Culture" is the main problem. Canadians have a lot of guns, probably not as many

as us per capita, but they don't go shooting up the joint like we do here. I think there was a section on this in Bowling for Columbine.

[YoungDemCA]

146. It's much easier for the mainstream to blame certain individuals or groups

who already are stigmatized and lack support, than it is to acknowledge the mainstream, dominant culture's own culpability in perpetuating violence and death.

[Vashta Nerada]

90. I move to go further than this.

Anyone with any mental disability (e.g. depression, manic depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, etc.) shouldn't be allowed to own a gun.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

158. Or vote, they make the wrong choice. Or have 4A rights, they may be hiding something dangerous.

[Vashta Nerada]

166. So you believe that people who are mentally disturbed should own guns!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

182. You said you want them permanently disqualified.

Are you picking and choosing which rights people retain based on your personal biases or is this idea of yours universal in its application?

[Vashta Nerada]

184. Absolutely.

People with schizophrenia, anger management problems, or other severe mental maladies shouldn't be anywhere near guns.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

201. Then we should also permanently do away with their 4A rights.

That way you can make sure they are secretly keeping guns in their homes.

[Vashta Nerada]

217. I don't know how you arrived to that conclusion.

[pipi_k]

94. I see your point, but...

what about the families of people who have severe depression?

In my case, should Mr Pipi have his firearms taken away because I'm the one with a history of depression?

[Sancho]

95. Yep...not surprising...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_FORT_HOOD?SITE=FLPET&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

FORT HOOD, Texas (AP) -- An Iraq War veteran being treated for mental illness was the gunman who opened fire at Fort Hood, killing three people and wounding 16 others before committing suicide, in an attack on the same Texas military base where more than a dozen people were slain in 2009, authorities said.

Within hours of the Wednesday attack, investigators started looking into whether the man's combat experience had caused lingering psychological trauma. Fort Hood's senior officer, Lt. Gen. Mark Milley, said the gunman had sought help for depression, anxiety and other problems.

[BigDemVoter]

96. If you are hospitalized for certain mental disorders in California. . .

You are barred from buying firearms for. . . I'm not sure how long. . . .

Of course this doesn't address those who do not seek treatment, NOR does it address privacy concerns. . . Just saying. . .

[NCTraveler]

97. I think people with testesterone should be banned from purchasing guns.

It would result in fewer deaths than your proposal and not single out those in society who desperately need our support.

[hughee99]

123. So everyone, then? n/t

[bowens43]

102. everyone should be banned from purchasing/carrying guns

[Sunlei]

112. Doctors will tell depressed people not to have guns around, of course any background requirement

would hurt gun sales.

[Sunlei]

118. probably should ban them from flying planes too. To many side effects from the medications.

remember the recent pilot and some flight crew who went all paranoid/freak-out, during the flight? Side effect from their RX medication.

RX drug side effects. So many millions of people on those daily depression meds the drug corp pushes on TV ads. The side effects list is a mile long.

[ileus]

122. Never forget just wanting a firearm is the first sign

Of mental illness.


Or so I read, so it may or may not be true.

[Hoyt]

137. It is definitely a sign of anti-social behavior. When one covets multiple weapons, and

Last edited Thu Apr 3, 2014, 01:25 PM - Edit history (1)

get all into so-called "self-defense," special loads, best gun for folks fleeing a hurricane, etc., they -- and we -- have a problem.

Too many like this running around proudly in our society:




And, too many succumbing to marketing programs like this:

[ileus]

138. Thanks...I knew you'd have my back.

[tammywammy]

127. A government database of medical records, what could go wrong with that?

No, thank you. And I say this as a non-gun owner with no intention of owning one either.

[HereSince1628]

136. Let's say it like it is...a government CRIMINAL database that adds people due to illness.

We are talking about causally associating criminality with mental illness.

What the F**K could go wrong with that?

[tammywammy]

139. Yep.

I've been pretty sad/upset/frustrated the last few weeks. Not enough to go to the doctor, but I did leave work early yesterday - maybe we should go ahead and add that too. I mean I told my boss I was having a tough day and needed to take the afternoon as a "mental health day".

[YoungDemCA]

145. Especially considering how pervasive mental illness is in our society

And how many more people who likely suffer from mental illness but are not diagnosed.

[YoungDemCA]

141. Glad to see you still said "I support the Second Amendment"...

EDIT: and great idea, stigmatize people who suffer from mental illness even more! What could go wrong?

[darkangel218]

164. You are wrong to think my intention was to stigmatize anyone.

We need better and more thorough gun control laws. I don't know what the exact answer is, but something needs to be done about it. Too many innocent people lose their life in the hands of mass shooters, and mental illness has been a common denominator in many of those instances.

[hrmjustin]

149. Hey library girl!

[Heidi]

151. How about people who have been observed acting erratically under the influence of alcohol?

Absent any criminal conviction or other legal prohibition, should these folks also "be banned from purchasing/carrying guns"? How about possessing firearms?

[LynnTTT]

154. No chance- older vets with dementia

are still allowed to keep weapons. I forget what state it was, but that was a topic in a gun control issue in court and the NRA was up in arms. Mental illness of any kind shouldn't be an issue in your right to have a weapon. The good news is that caretakers can hide the gun and Grandpa won't remember. He'll be pointing the remote at you and cursing cause it don't work.

[steve2470]

172. I have not read this entire thread but....................

I"m sure someone has already said this:

Severe depression has nothing to do with homicide. With SUICIDE, yes. Now, it's possible someone can be severely depressed with command hallucinations telling him or her to go kill people. That's a psychotic thing.

So...I don't agree with you.

[darkangel218]

175. Are you sure about that?

A lot of depressed people become not only suicidal but psychotic and homicidal.

Read a bit more about it.

[steve2470]

176. two different animals

A person can have multiple diagnoses. Any mental health professional on this board will tell you that. Suicide is part of the problem with depression, but not homicide. That's a different diagnosis.

[HereSince1628]

177. Oh, really? How about producing federal surveillance numbers to back that up

Look in the CDC or the FBI on-line data.

You are so full of bacterial, nondigested food remnants that they are coming out your keyboard.

[dionysus]

199. i think YOU need to read more about it, frankly.

[BainsBane]

232. There is substantial evidence

To show the mentally ill are LESS likely to commit violent crimes than the general population. They are, however, more likely to be victims of violent crimes. The greatest correlation with violence is use of alcohol and recreational drugs.

[Corruption Inc]

174. Except in the for-profit war machine wherein it's a prerequisite

Let's ban cops, security guards, store owners and everyone who even has a bad day too, including internet trolls.

Ahhhh, banning people from things is so much fun!

[Make7]

180. Should people suffering from severe depression be allowed to vote? ( n/t )

[darkangel218]

183. Good point.

I don't have an answer for that. Wish I did.

[CTyankee]

193. The answer is that public safety is not threatened immediately by the vote...

it could be later but we have ways of sifting out the nut cases in our politics. Guns not so much. You got a gun, you got the immediate power to kill...

[Heddi]

198. You don't know if people who are depressed should be allowed to vote?

Why shouldn't people with depression be allowed to vote?

The ease in which you are able to deny basic rights to people you deem unworthy or lesser than you is really frightening.

Anyone else that shouldn't be allowed to vote? People with speech impediments? Congenital defects? Oh! Blind people. How can they vote when they can't even see the ballot. You should add them to the list. People with limps, or artificial limbs.

Are you sure you're on the right message board?

[Sissyk]

210. First 0-7 Leave I've been on.

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

On Thu Apr 3, 2014, 10:55 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

You don't know if people who are depressed should be allowed to vote?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4776889

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Personal attack. ( last sentence ).

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Apr 3, 2014, 10:59 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not an attack. Chill, alerter.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't see any indication of a personal attack.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Maybe not very nice, but not a TOS violation .
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Stupid alert.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[deathrind]

181. Go after the ammo.

Humans have provided more than enough evidence that firearm ownership is a detriment to society it is time to heavily restrict or ban altogether this detriment as we have done with other detriments such as drugs. However since the firearm is protected by the 2nd amendment there is not much that can be done to restrict them but the 2nd says nothing about ammo so there is a lot of room there to enact legislation that would neuter the protected firearm.

[Kaleva]

190. Medical confidentiality laws make that problematic.

[Heddi]

197. One would think that all your Nursing School training would educated you on mental illness

which would have hopefully given you insight into mental illnesses, which would have (hopefully) taught you to have empathy for people with mental illnesses.

But that didn't happen.

Up above, in post 175, you state:

"A lot of depressed people become not only suicidal but psychotic and homicidal.

Read a bit more about it."

But that isn't true at all. You are the one that needs to "read more about it"

Of course, this wouldn't be the first time that you've said things that no self-respecting Nursing Student (or RN for that matter) would ever state or imply.

The things you've written here are based on ignorance and bigotry towards the mentally ill.

And I'm sure you're aware that "depression" isn't a permanent state of mind. It's also not one that can be easily considered "cured." Many people who are diagnosed with depression have times when their depression is very disruptive to life, and times when its not. There are people for whom medication works well, and others who have no change with medication.

So once someone is labeled "mentally ill" or "depressed," what kind of hoops do they have to go through to prove that they are no longer depressed? THere's no blood tests, no paper tests, no xrays that can be done.

Are they marked for life?

What about situational depression from the death of a loved one or loss of a job.

You're suggesting things that will further stigmatize mental illness, and decrease the chances that people get the help they need.

You mention that EMR's will be the answer. What if a dr just flippantly states I have a depressed mood. Is that "depression?" How will patients ever have a chance to know whether they've been labeled fairly or unfairly? Will there be a process to clear their name?

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/DepressionOverview/relationship-depression-violence/story?id=4360759
Question: What is the relationship between depression and violence?

Answer: The relationship between depression and violence is relatively poorly studied. But the major fact of the matter is that depressed patients by and large are not at risk for violence. Most psychiatric patients who commit violence are patients who are psychotic and only a small number of depressed patients are psychotic.

https://www.mdguidelines.com/depressive-psychosis
Incidence and Prevalence:Approximately 10% to 25% of women and 5% to 12% of men are at a lifetime risk for developing a major depressive disorder, with only a small percentage of those exhibiting psychotic features.

http://www.cmha.ca/mental_health/violence-and-mental-illness/#.Uz3aia1dXUU

As a group, people with mental health issues are not more violent than any other group in our society. The majority of crimes are not committed by people with psychiatric illness, and multiple studies have proven that there is very little relationship between most of these diseases and violence. The real issue is the fact that people with mental illness are two and a half to four times more likely to be the victims of violence than any other group in our society.


But you already knew all this already....

[darkangel218]

202. Are you ever going to stop your personal attacks and have an honest conversation?

I didn't think so.

[Heddi]

205. Are you ever going to address the points I bring up when i counter your nonsense?

I didn't think so

[darkangel218]

208. You just fuking called me a bigot a sentence down.

Screw this. Either have an adult discussion or don't. I not going to bite into your drama claim bait. Let me know when you're ready, Until then you're blocked.

[Heddi]

212. I said your views towards the mentally ill were bigoted and ill-informed

which they are. The mentally ill (specifically people with depression) aren't more likely to commit violence, they're more likely to be the VICTIMS of violence.

This has been pointed out to you many times in this thread.

You don't care.

You also don't think the mentally ill should be allowed to vote. TO FUCKING VOTE.



That is a bigoted thought. There is no reason why people with mental illness shouldn't be allowed to vote.

If you can't see why your repeated smears against people with mental illness in your thread, especially given the fact that you have gone to nursing school and may or may not be an RN, are bigoted, then there is nothing I Can do to help you

[darkangel218]

206. Your continual personal attacks against me are disgusting.

Calling me a bigot because I said severely depressed people shouldnt own a gun is also disgusting. Do you have any idea how many have died because they had access to or were able to purchase firearms?. You claim you have healthcare training. If you did, should know your stats.
Quit your personal attacks and try to have an honest dialogue for once.

[Heddi]

218. Post the stats if you're so sure of them. I am in healthcare and I am much more aware of the reality

of mental illness than you are.

Please. Post the stats to back up your repeated statements that the mentally ill (specifically those with depression) are more likely to participate in violent acts against others, and that the majority of gun-related killings are caused by people with mental illness, specifically depression.

YOU make the claim, YOU back it up. I've already provided links that show that those with mental illness are NOT more likely to be involved with violent crimes. Now it's your turn

[idendoit]

203. Low information types should be banned from posting nonsense.

[darkangel218]

204. Tell that to the famillies of those who lkst their life.

[idendoit]

211. Tell that to all the non violent people with a mental illness diagnosis.

You would deny those people a basic right to own a firearm to defend themselves, based on what?

[darkangel218]

214. Its not a basic right anymore to someone who cant discern the right from wrong.

[idendoit]

216. What qualifies you to say a person with mental illness can't discern right from wrong?

[Heddi]

219. She also isn't sure if people with depression should be allowed to vote

I only post the screen cap because she has a known history of self-deleting threads that she finds embarrassing later.

[idendoit]

220. Thank you.

[XRubicon]

207. People who support the second amendment should be put on severe medication until the condition

Is resolved.

[darkangel218]

209. Haha! funny

[TransitJohn]

213. Fuck yeah! Make a mood ring the trigger lock! That'll work!

n/t

[pacalo]

222. I read your OP last night right after you posted it.

I've come to expect to see divisive opinionated OPs posted regularly by you & this is no different. I just did one of these last night & moved on to something else, but your OP got my attention again when I saw it high on the "most discussed" list.

I wish you had learned more about depression before writing this OP.

Or maybe you know better & your motivation for posting it was to create drama.

That's my impression of your attention seeking. I don't think I'm alone on this.

[phil89]

227. Again with the unsubstantiated stigma-inducing idea

that mental illness causes violence? It's 2014, right?