Mental health background checks for gun purchases

[Shodan]

@Stoneburg

I think the fact that you want to own a gun should be a reason for a talk with a therapist. Instead of buying a gun to “feel safe” you could sit down and talk to someone about what it is that is making you feel unsafe and what you can do about it that does not involve acquiring a deadly weapon. If it is just “for fun”, why not just get an air-gun. It’s a lot cheaper and there’s no risk of you accidentally killing someone else or hurting yourself with it (ok fine, you might hurt yourself a little).

The idea of background checks etc is not very valid IMO. Looking into and solving the issue of why someone feels the need to have a gun in the first case seems more reasonable. It’s not “normal” or psychologically healthy. The fact that it is very common in the US does not make it reasonable.

If you want a gun, you are crazy and can’t have it. If you don’t want a gun, then you are sane and won’t have it.

That’s some catch, that catch-22.

Regards,
Shodan

[Stoneburg]

@Shodan

If you want a gun, you are crazy and can’t have it. If you don’t want a gun, then you are sane and won’t have it.

That’s some catch, that catch-22.

Regards,
Shodan

Got to catch them all!

I didn’t say crazy though, that was your addition. I was only suggesting we look into the underlying psychological reasons why people feel the need to buy and own guns. I suspect it will be a host of different reasons and rationalizations.

I also didn’t say they can’t have it… actually you completely made up a totally different thing from what I was saying and then tried to push it onto me. That’s not nice. :dubious:

My actual opinion is that Americans should be allowed to buy as many and as lethal guns as they want, up to and including tanks, mini guns and flamethrowers. If we’re going to do this experiment we might as well do it full on. And since you’re on a completely different continent the rest of us should be safe (notice how I didn’t include jet fighters and ICBM’s? Because they could be used to target ME!). As long as you are no threat to me personally, you can kill each other to your hearts content. Canada and Mexico might have a problem with it but hey, they can just build a wall. From what I hear, some people in the US are already planning ahead. That way we have a safe place, walled in, where people who are angry and afraid can work out their differences with guns, and the rest of the world can keep experimenting with this thing called “non-violent communication” where you use words to express how you feel, rather than attempt to propel pieces of metal through other peoples bodies.

Those who do not want to play cowboys and indians can come live with me in Europe, or just climb over the wall into Mexico or Canada. Then we can all eat popcorns and watch “Survival behind the wall” or whatever we’re going to call the reality show you’re putting up.

[VinylTurnip]

We already have a system.

1. Kook buys gun
2. Kook murders a bunch of people
3. Half of country cries “how did we let this happen?”
4. Other half buys more guns
5. GOTO 1

I see no reason to mess with success.

[Stoneburg]

@VinylTurnip

We already have a system.

1. Kook buys gun
2. Kook murders a bunch of people
3. Half of country cries “how did we let this happen?”
4. Other half buys more guns
5. GOTO 1

I see no reason to mess with success.

I’d like to change step 5 to “Profits” . THEN the cycle starts over. It’s awesome. The use of guns leads to the purchase of more guns. More gun deaths = more gun profits. Since we know profit is good, that means gun deaths are good. So if you’re against gun deaths, you’re basically an anti-American communist. And as we all know, the only good communist is a dead communist…

This is god damn genius. This way we maximize profits AND get rid of all the communists. It’s the American dream come true. If only Reagan was alive to see it…

[Slash1972]

@Johnny_L.A

Criminal history is available to government agencies, and may even be on the public record. Medical records are not.

This is not true. Almost everyone who has a government investigated security clearance has had their medical records made available to the government.

[Ike_Witt]

@Slash1972

This is not true. Almost everyone who has a government investigated security clearance has had their medical records made available to the government.

With their express consent.

[Slash1972]

@Ike_Witt

With their express consent.

True, but consent wasn’t mentioned, only the ability.

[AHunter3]

@Johnny_L.A

AHunter3: I did not mean to imply that anyone who is mentally ill should be denied access to firearms. The problem is, I’m not a psychiatrist or psychologist. The fact is that there are mentally unstable people who should not have a gun, and many of them have medical histories that would make their condition known. The clinically depressed person I know would not hurt another person, buy might commit suicide. (I don’t think so, but it’s a possibility.) Another person may have anger management issues and, as shown by such people as the guy who shot a cinema patron for browsing on a cell phone, are more likely to pose a danger to society.

What I’m looking for here is how to keep mentally ill people from buying guns, not which mental illnesses are disqualifying.

Did you actually read my post?

If so, you aren’t displaying much in the way of reading comprehension.

[Johnny_L.A]

@AHunter3

Did you actually read my post?

If so, you aren’t displaying much in the way of reading comprehension.

Are you comprehending what I’m saying? Because it seems you are not. There are people who, because of their mental state, many of whom have medical records indicating that their owning of firearms would be detrimental to society, should not possess firearms. What do you have a problem with?

[QUOTE=AHunter3]
Even people who have both a psychiatric diagnosis and the opinion of their psychiatrists that they are dangerous are not solidly and reliably more likely to commit violent acts than the rest of you are. (Or, to restate, psychiatrists have a pretty abysmal success rate when it comes to predicting dangerousness).
[/quote]

It seems you are saying that since some people have been deemed dangerous by professionals in the field, and since people who have not been diagnosed or treated might commit violent acts, that these medical professionals should not err on the side of caution, and even if people who have not been adjudicated to be dangerous by a court should be able to purchase guns.

[Stoneburg]

If you don’t want crazy people to have guns, wouldn’t it make sense to make people who want to buy a gun go see a psychiatrist or a psychologist?

[UberArchetype]

@Stoneburg

If you don’t want crazy people to have guns, wouldn’t it make sense to make people who want to buy a gun go see a psychiatrist or a psychologist?

I been trying to make people do stuff all my life. Kids seem hardest. Haven’t figured it out yet.

[Stoneburg]

@UberArchetype

I been trying to make people do stuff all my life. Kids seem hardest. Haven’t figured it out yet.

Have you tried using a gun?
Just trying to be helpful…

[Jack_Batty]

BECAUSE THAT WOULD LEAD TO CONFISCATION!!!
I’m sorry. What was the question again?

[Asimovian]

@Stoneburg

I think the fact that you want to own a gun should be a reason for a talk with a therapist. Instead of buying a gun to “feel safe” you could sit down and talk to someone about what it is that is making you feel unsafe and what you can do about it that does not involve acquiring a deadly weapon. If it is just “for fun”, why not just get an air-gun. It’s a lot cheaper and there’s no risk of you accidentally killing someone else or hurting yourself with it (ok fine, you might hurt yourself a little).

@Stoneburg

Perhaps it is you who don’t understand the underlying psychological mechanisms that leads to your behavior, and instead you rationalize what is in essence a repressed fear that is causing pathological behavior?

@Stoneburg

Have you tried using a gun?
Just trying to be helpful…

Actually, what you’re doing is derailing a thread, and it needs to stop. Warning issued.

[AHunter3]

@Johnny_L.A

There are people who, because of their mental state, many of whom have medical records indicating that their owning of firearms would be detrimental to society, should not possess firearms. What do you have a problem with?

I disagree with your assessment.

What we have are people who, because of their mental state, should not possess firearms; and then we also have a population of people who have a psychiatric diagnosis. You are implying that a Venn Diagram would show a strong degree of overlap between those two populations, sufficient to treat the people in the second group as being ipso facto members of the first.

I’ve already explained that that’s not in evidence.
Unless you meant some other medical records and did not mean that we should disallow firearm possession by people who have a psychiatric diagnosis?? What medical records would these be, and how do we determine that they’re any more reliable?

It seems you are saying that since some people have been deemed dangerous by professionals in the field, and since people who have not been diagnosed or treated might commit violent acts, that these medical professionals should not err on the side of caution, and even if people who have not been adjudicated to be dangerous by a court should be able to purchase guns.

Nope. Not even close. Not even in the same ballpark as what I was saying. Possibly in the same region of the country as the abovementioned ballpark but I’m not sure.
I am saying that the assessment of psychiatric professions that a person has a mental illness is useless for predicting dangerousness and should not be used to deny people the right to possess guns if they wish.

I am furthermore saying that the specific assessment of psychiatric professionals that a psychiatrically diagnosed person is dangerous isn’t useful for predicting actual dangerousness either, and also should not be used to deny folks the right to be weapons owners if they are so inclined.

[Broomstick]

@Stoneburg

I think the fact that you want to own a gun should be a reason for a talk with a therapist. Instead of buying a gun to “feel safe” you could sit down and talk to someone about what it is that is making you feel unsafe and what you can do about it that does not involve acquiring a deadly weapon.

Why do you presume that owning a gun is about “feeling safe” or not? Most of the people I know personally who own guns use them for hunting. Do you think people should sit down and talk with someone about why they want to eat meat?

If it is just “for fun”, why not just get an air-gun. It’s a lot cheaper and there’s no risk of you accidentally killing someone else or hurting yourself with it (ok fine, you might hurt yourself a little).

Actually, you CAN kill yourself or someone else with an airgun - according to this there’s an average of one fatality per year in the UK from air guns, along with assorted injuries. I find it troubling that you are attempting to speak on this subject while you are not aware of this.

Yes, air guns are safer than “real” guns (they’re actually both real guns) but that doesn’t mean they’re harmless.

It’s not “normal” or psychologically healthy. The fact that it is very common in the US does not make it reasonable.

While we’re at it maybe we should ban archery, too - that’s not normal either, is it?

Your presumption is that gun ownership is always about self defense and/or feeling unsafe. While that certainly accounts for some of it, that is by no means the sole reason for gun ownership.

[Stoneburg]

@Asimovian

Actually, what you’re doing is derailing a thread, and it needs to stop. Warning issued.

Fine. I agree that the later two were derailing, still think the first one was valid though. But you’re the moderator and I don’t argue with moderators (or people with guns).

[Foggy]

@Johnny_L.A

You realise you have just you have just called me mentally ill. I find that insulting.

DANGER!! DANGER! Hi, I’m Foggy. I’m mentally ill. DANGER! DANGER!

In April of 2012, I agreed to go into the Psych-ward.
In April of 2015 I wasn’t given a choice.

When I was discharged back in 2012, I was told that I could not buy/own a gun (some confusion about that) for 5 years, but I could request a hearing to appeal that. I didn’t care, so I waived my right to the hearing.

There is HIPAA and California has a law to prevent discrimination based on having been in the psych-ward.

I don’t know how any of this works or what would happen if I tried to buy a gun.
I’m a threat only to small appliances & myself.

[Wesley_Clark]

I think it is a red herring issue, because most people with mental health issues have garden variety depression or anxiety. People with more serious issues that make them emotionally volatile (PTSD, BPD, etc) may avoid treatment for fear of being stigmatized.

Plus a person can always straw purchase or steal a weapon. That is what the shooter in Sandy Hook did, he stole guns from his mother after killing her.

All in all, I think it is just an effort to feel safe by stigmatizing the mentally ill who are a very powerless group that society has no qualms about cracking down on. I don’t know if it’ll help much at all.

Also most of these shooters are males, why not just prohibit 50% of the public (ie men) from owning guns? If only women could own guns, and men couldn’t get to them then there would be far less of these shootings.

[kayaker]

@AHunter3

I disagree with your assessment.

What we have are people who, because of their mental state, should not possess firearms; and then we also have a population of people who have a psychiatric diagnosis. You are implying that a Venn Diagram would show a strong degree of overlap between those two populations, sufficient to treat the people in the second group as being ipso facto members of the first.

I’ve already explained that that’s not in evidence.

Yeah, I got what you meant originally and the Venn diagram is a great clarification. Life ain’t easy.