Assuming complete compliance, would any of the current laws have prevented the killers in Newtown, Aurora, Tucson, or Virginia Tech from obtaining firearms?
I don’t have a cite for it at the moment, but I’ve heard that the Virginia Tech shooter had been briefly involuntarily committed, but that information wasn’t entered into the NICS database. If it had been, he would have failed the background check at the gun dealer’s, and that shooting would have been prevented.
Possibly. A court ordered him to seek outpatient treatment, and that may not have been enough to get him into the database. If he’d been ordered to seek inpatient treatment he would have been in there for sure. And for a variety of reasons the treatment he got was minimal and he got worse and worse. There are some complicated issues of individual freedom here, but it’s a problem that someone can be observed to have these kinds of serious problems and then there is no one who has the whole picture or the ability to do anything about it. The other phase is about people not understanding that someone around them has a severe illness and isn’t going to get better on their own, and that there should be an accessible and non-stigmatized way for them to seek help.
The person whose second amendment rights are being restricted due to having sought treatment.
Why would anybody seek treatment if the end result is that they become second class citizens? They lose any chance at a job in the military, law enforcement, intelligence or security. They no longer get to shoot targets or go hunting, hobbies which may be the basis of their social circle or how they define themselves. They lose the right to defend themselves.
No, if treatment is worth anything at all (I’m skeptical, but let’s assume it is, for the sake of argument), we should provide incentives and rewards for seeking it out and taking advantage of it, not discourage it by restricting the rights of those who are treated.
I heard on the radio today some caller expressing concern about, again, The Government, knowing your medical records. His problem was that if we somehow tie medical background checks to gun purchases, then does that mean every time someone buys a gun, their medical history is known? What, he asks, if the government finds out if someone has cancer? Why should they know about that?
I like the response from the host. Through things like Medicare, Medicaid, etc., the government already knows what you have. And so fucking what? In order to be able to screen out violent mentally ill people, they can’t see someone who has cancer? God damn paranoia has also infected the pro-gun crowd, thinking anything they can hide should be hidden. Well tough shit. There is a good, reasonable, rational reason to keep firearms out of mentally unstable people who may kill themselves or others. If a medical check is what’s required, then that’s alright
That’s great and all, but what makes you think a) that “mentally unstable who may kill themselves or others” can be diagnosed with any accuracy, and b) that refusing to sell them weapons based on that diagnosis will actually prevent them from obtaining those weapons?
I’m pretty sure the actual result will be a bunch of innocent, harmless people get their rights stripped for no reason, people who need help will refuse to get it in order to maintain their constitutional rights, while legitimately dangerous people will obtain weapons and use them with exactly the same ease and frequency as they do now. So who have you harmed and what have you gained?
That’s not a punishment. Calling it one is misleading, and while individual freedoms are very important, so is the safety of the public. Both have to be kept in mind in cases like this.
Because they need treatment. The possibility of a future security clearance or hunting trip is pretty trifling if you’re struggling with a disease that can kill you (since again we are talking about a small portion of people with mental illness. That’d be indicative of some screwed-up priorities.
You know what’d be a great incentive? Free guns! Seriously: the incentive is that they get treatment and get well, and to that end we need to have a mental health system that works better, is well-funded and not associated with the idea of a Bedlam-style house of horrors. And we need to teach people that having a serious mental illness and seeking treatment isn’t a character flaw and that people with these problems are not the Joker.
We already do this. Why do you think we can’t? No faith in doctors or our ability to study the human brain?
I don’t think we do. Not with any accuracy or precision. I’d appreciate a cite. But you’re right, I have no faith in psychiatry.
And call it whatever you want if “punishment” is too offensive. The fact is that restricting people’s rights based on mental health treatment is a disincentive to obtain that treatment. Would you say restricting gun rights of felons is a disincentive to committing felonies? Would you call it a punishment, maybe?
What if it were another right? What if your freedom of speech were curtailed upon receiving a negative psychiatric prognosis? Would you expect lines at the mental health facility?
If eating cheeseburgers meant waiving your right to a search warrant and due process, do you think McDonald’s would get a whole lot of business?
I’m having a hard time understanding how you can disagree. When the government restricts your rights based on doing X, far fewer people are going to do X. The whole theory of criminal deterrence goes out the window if you don’t accept that. Why do we put nonviolent people in jail if not to discourage and punish them for their crimes?
Thank you both. I think this kind of legislation is one of the few practical and possibly effective ways to move forward, and the upside of it woul dbe that mental health would be taken more seriously by all.
I agree with all this. However, I fail to see how restricting the constitutional rights of people who seek help will further your goal at all. In fact it seems entirely counterproductive.
"Hey folks! Mental health is important, that’s why we want to encourage people to seek treatment if they think they may have a problem. Mental illness is not a character flaw. And that’s why we strip the mentally ill of their gun rights and refuse to let them join the military or become cops. They won’t be able to hunt squirrels again for the rest of their lives and even the Segway riding mall cop career path is cut off from them. Because we want you to know there is no stigma at all and the mentally ill are not the Joker.
Furthermore, we’d like to point out that mental health treatment is so helpful and effective that you will never get better and these restrictions on your rights will be permanent."
I’ll let that speak for itself.
And if the treatment itself is unpleasant, that could be a disincentive, so maybe we can’t allow treating people. The issue is this: we don’t really want totally unstable or dangerous people in the military or the CIA. It’s not a good idea for anybody. In fact it could endanger a ton of people. So while that stinks for those few ineligible people, it’s a good thing for society. Like I said, individual rights are important, but not to the exclusion of the rights of everyone else. The saying is “The Constitution is not a suicide pact.”
Yes, because unlike the gun restrictions, that’s actually intended as a punishment and is based on their actions rather than a theoretical danger.
This again. Here is the problem: guns are weapons and they can be used to kill. So there is a logical reason to keep people from owning them in certain circumstances. Speech doesn’t work that way. Speech that can endanger people does get restricted.
Do we have a right to eat cheeseburgers now? I thought it was just a national obligation.
The specific problem is that there have been restrictions of this type for years and you haven’t posted any evidence that it’s causing fewer people to seek treatment for mental illness, and I doubt it’s true. The more general problem is that you’re posting a formulation with no details. People make decisions based on the perceived costs and benefits of the action being considered. You have not defined the cost (“your rights are restricted” - which ones, and how does it affect me?) or the benefits (“doing X”). Yes, restricting my ability to do X based on Y might make me stop doing X. Then again, maybe I don’t do Y (for example I don’t eat cheeseburgers) or I think restrictions on X are more valuable than my individual right to do Y. The details matter.
Do you understand that these restrictions have existed for years? It’s been explained repeatedly and I linked to a list of restrictions on gun rights for people who have been deemed mentally ill in my first post, but somehow you seem not to have picked up on this.
The restrictions aren’t permanent, and the “you’ll never get better” thing appears to be your own invention based on your views of psychiatry - and those views kind of make your opinion irrelevant because it turns it into something like an argument from ignorance.
The people who commit gun massacres aren’t slight depression cases. They are flaming schizophrenics who scare their friends and family for years before acting and, in almost every case, quite explicitly tell multiple people what they plan to do. This issue is so clouded with bullshit that this gets buried–remember how many years of “they were just great kids who snapped” “trenchcoat mafia” “jocks” “video games” “Marilyn Manson” and “gun control” we had to go through due to applying eveyryone’s dumb ideologies to Columbine before someone was able to publish a story about the neighbor lady who brought Eric Harris’s detailed plans for the massacre, published on his website, to the FBI and got no response? We don’t need to start stigmatizing every kind of mental illness, but we do need to get people to see through their own denial regarding their close acquaintances. If someone is completely unhinged, if someone TELLS YOU he’s going to shoot up a crowd of people, take him seriously and act accordingly. It would cut down on this sort of thing immensely. Unfortunately, actually preventing massacres doesn’t serve anyone’s agenda, so nobody is interested.
I’d modify that to read “get OFFICIALS to see through their own denial…” As you point out, folks did try to point out that Harris and Klebold, Cho, the Aurora Colorado shooter, etc. had big-time problems, but their reports weren’t acted on. And no mental health flag went into the NICS database on any of these folks, with tragic results.
Maybe the law needs to be modified so that if a psychiatrist or other mental health professional feels that one of their patients is a credible threat to others, that information could be entered into the database (even if the person isn’t involuntarily committed)? If such a report was automatically sunsetted after a set amount of time (say, five years), I don’t think it would cause too much harm in terms of people temporarily suffering from depression, etc., being forever stripped of their 2nd Amendment rights because of an over-reaction on the part of their doctor.
Do you have information on how well doctors are able to predict violent behavior by examination?
Plus ISTM that we are going to run into due process, and Fifth Amendment, issues, pretty quick, once we start deciding that we are going to screen the general public for mental health issues because one in a million of them are going to snap and start shooting people.
knock knock knock
Son of the homeowner, who has never been arrested or involved in the court system: “What do you want?”
Doctor: “I’m here from the government. Your school says you don’t have any friends there, and some acquaintances of your mother say you have Asperger’s. I am going to take you to my office, where we will examine you to see if you are fit to exercise some of your rights under the Constitution.”
Son: “Fuck off, I’m not answering any questions.”
Doctor: “That’s your right, of course. I will write my report to reflect that you exhibited paranoid ideation and anger issues. The police will be along in a day or two to confiscate your mother’s guns. Have a nice day!”
Regards,
Shodan
I’m not sure where one would find that kind of information.
Did anyone suggest screening the general public? If so, I didn’t see it.
So when DrCube asked if “mentally unstable who may kill themselves or others” can be diagnosed with any accuracy, you asserted
What is the basis of your assertion that we already do this?
IOW I am asking for a cite. Please provide the evidence that you believe shows that doctors can accurately diagnose who are the people who are mentally unstable and may kill themselves or others, especially the rate of false positives, and especially in cases like the Sandy Hook shooter who apparently had no past history of violence or any criminal record.
Regards,
Shodan
This is part of the old “if we make it more difficult to get guns, they can still get one!” argument. Are you capable of understand the nuance between making something difficult to get, and 100% fullproof certainty? And you bring up the red herring of psychological diagnostics. Why don’t you just come out and say you don’t believe that psychology is a real science and that they are all crooks?
Since it is clear what your agenda is, why don’t you just come out and say it instead of playing these little games?
Just because you consider it a bad reason does not mean there is no reason some people shouldn’t have guns. People who want a gun should and will get the proper treatment for it if they are serious about gun ownership. That is like asking why we should make people who are suspicious about government and want to drive a car unlicensed be forced to deal with the local motor vehicles bureau. It is a safety issue and well within the regulation powers of the government to require one be competent to exercise a right. No net cast wide enough will catch all the fish, but you’d be foolish to think that it would be faster and easier with your bare hands
Let’s just argue the REAL reason that some are objecting to the medical diagnosis. I’ll be generous and spell it out for people:
“What’s to stop an evil government doctor from misdiagnosing ME as dangerous and mentally incompetent, thereby denying ME my right to own a gun? I don’t trust anyone who has a say in whether or not I can get a gun, because they are always assumed to be corrupt and have an agenda”
Right now we have a law with no teeth. Either enforce the law and take what steps necessary to do so (mental health disqualifications to NICS) or scrap the law. I would be in favor of mandatory reporting to NICS of disqualifying events. Due process is already addressed and there are pretty clear bright line delineations on when reporting would be necessary. Here are more specifics on what would be disqualifying regarding mental illness: (cross posted from another thread):
I would support laws that allow anyone who is willing, able, and not prohibited, to carry firearms wherever they wished with no restriction, including NFA weapons with suppressors and full auto, period.
Even with that I don’t want people who are felons or have been mentally adjudicated to possess or purchase firearms. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that’s not a controversial stance. The real question is how do we go about making that happen. I think the NICS check and linking records could be an effective means.