CBS 60 Mins: Track mentally ill via federal dbase?
This is a discussion on CBS 60 Mins: Track mentally ill via federal dbase? within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by Scheetz
If someone was marked for mental issues,
Which "mental issues"? Who determines just what a mental issue is? Sure, lets ban ...
View Poll Results: NICS database requirement that states track the mentally ill?
- 153. You may not vote on this poll
April 30th, 2007 03:44 AM
Which "mental issues"? Who determines just what a mental issue is? Sure, lets ban anyone judged (we all know how conservative and upstanding judges are, right?) as having mental issues from ever legally purchasing a handgun.
Originally Posted by Scheetz
Ok, now all that is required is to determine and push through a liberal legislature that the mere act of wanting to own a handgun is a legal basis for finding someone mentally incompetent. Can't happen? Don't bet your life on it.
There are plenty that think that voting republican makes one mentally disturbed. Gotta take guns away from them, and now with this new mental issue they can!
Of course Democrats love that, but next let's say that voting democrat makes one mentally disturbed.
Open up that slippery slope and it can lead you quickly into a disarmed public.
April 30th, 2007 03:44 AM
April 30th, 2007 06:36 AM
I saw the report as well...bad idea in my opinion.
First you start tracking the group of "mentally ill" then you start to track other groups. Do you really want your doctors to be legally required to turn over information about your health to the federal government for tracking purposes? In my opinion this would do much more dammage than good and I'm not in favor of it. My wife is an MD and she doesn't like the idea either from both the ethical and the 2A angles.
April 30th, 2007 07:55 AM
In theory I could support this. I've transported so many Psych patients, from simply depressed to frickin coocoo, that I think "mentally ill" is way too broad a definition. I've had patients who were simply grieving over the loss of children, mark them for life? no way. I've also had a quite nice looking woman, very normal and pleasant to talk to. I couldn't figure out why she was there, until 20 minutes into the drive, she looked at the ceiling in the ambulance, and started screaming about me lighting her head on fire with the lasers. She then jumped up and attacked me with her claws and tried to get my pen to stab me with. After reading her chart, it turns out that she intentionally plays nice as long as it takes to drop someones guard, then tries to kill them. She is one for the list, forever.
Most civilians don't have any idea how many real nuts are out there, and how severe there issues can be. I've probably run on as many psychs as I have heart attacks in my 6 yrs in the field.
If I knew that there would be a way to be removed without 6 months of red tape and hassle, then maybe. I doubt this would be the case. I think the guy or girl who faked attempted suicide as a high school kid would likely end up on the list forever. That said, man, there simply are a lot of people who should not have easy access to guns. Still voting no, save nics for felons.
April 30th, 2007 08:24 AM
I've been a licensed psychiatric social worker for almost 20 years. I've worked with all kinds of mental illness and in various outpatient and inpatient settings. IMO, this is a horrible idea that will not accomplish what it is intended to. There is way too much potential for abuse and biased diagnosis and interpretation.
I voted NO, NO, NO.
HELGA: Where are you going?
HAGAR: To sign a peace treaty with the King of England.
HELGA: Then why take all those weapons?
HAGAR: First we gotta negotiate...
April 30th, 2007 08:45 AM
We all rant and rave about enforcing the laws that we have on the books and not passing any new laws regarding gun control, then we support the mentally ill who seem to be the very people who are giving the gun owners of America a bad name. You simply can not have it both ways.
One should never confuse good fortune with good training.
Illegitimus Non Carborundum.
In God we trust.
April 30th, 2007 08:57 AM
It has nothing to do with supporting a group of mentally ill people. It's avoiding yet another waste of time, resources, and funding that will not solve anymore than 2 crimes ever. It's going to be a huge failure just like the Maryland ballistics database.
Originally Posted by Old Chief
We all recognize that no matter what you do there are going to be bad people in society. That's why we carry guns. Why any of us would think that the government can somehow fix this, is beyond belief.
...He suggested that "every American citizen" should own a rifle and train with it on firing ranges "at every courthouse." -Chesty Puller
April 30th, 2007 09:05 AM
This is a bad idea. This may be the worst idea ever!! Slippery Slope indeed!!!
OK, your wife just filed for divorce and you lost your job. You are understandably upset and depressed. You see a psychologist and are prescribed some Prozac to help you through the depression. Your psychologist doesn't see any signs of suicidal tendencies or any indication that you might hurt others. This is a temporary situation that, for most all people, will pass in a short period of time.
Are you mentally ill? The state of Texas would deny you a CHL based soley on your use of Prozac. And I have to assume that if that is the case this law would require them to add you to the "list".
Now, try and get your name off this list. I double dog dare you!!
I worked on the Psych wards when I was in the service. The one thing I learned for sure is just how subjective these diagnoses are.
There is NO WAY that the federal government in conjunction with all the state governments can administer this in a fair way. And when the Anti's are in power in a given state you can rest assured that anyone that even looks depressed will be added to the list.
No Thank You!! This will never work, and it will eventually turned against us.
April 30th, 2007 09:15 AM
Not that it is the same thing. In CO if you are caught mooning some one you are now considered, I don't remember the correct term, a sex offender. And you can't possess a fire arm, legally.
So you are having a bad day, and are depressed. Some one takes it way to far, and now you are classified mentally ill.
Their has to be a better way, but I am not smart enough to figure it out.
If you don't protect your self, who will?
April 30th, 2007 09:38 AM
April 30th, 2007 10:22 AM
Like many (most?), I'd prefer that Johnnie's Gun Shop didn't sell a gun to Crazy Bob. But to think that informing Johnnie's Gun Shop that Crazy Bob is to be denied access hardly means that Bob won't acquire a gun. It's a fool's errand. And it's a system begging to be abused and corrupted, with the most-abusable portion of our citizenry as its focal point. Slippery slope indeed. Whatever else may be said, that's not a "system." It is, though, a relatively bad idea.
Originally Posted by Old Chief
The simple fact is, existing crimes on the books are failing to be enforced due to whimsy, malfeasance, lack of funds, lack of competence and a host of reasons. Praying that denial of one avenue out of a dozen will keep someone from acquiring a firearm is not likely to result in a weaponless criminal. Even if that criminal be a little crazed
However, removal of that person from the street will, for that duration, remove that person's crimes from the street. Guaranteed. It's simple and effective. At least, so long as the punishments actually fit the crime, instead of ending up as some watered-down embarrassing alternative. Even this fool-proof system has been mismanaged to the point of laughable failure. It would be funny, if it weren't for the fact that we all pay for the revolving-door joke it has become.
Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
self defense (A.O.J.).
How does disarming
the number of victims?
Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos)
NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.
April 30th, 2007 10:22 AM
Again, I find it interesting that 95% of the comments on this thread have been against the idea, but the actual vote is 52% for tougher controls vs. 48% against, with the "Yea's" in the majority! They say the squeeky wheel gets the grease, but it looks like there's a silent majority (though barely) that's letting their actions - vote in this case - speak louder than words. I find it all the more unusual since this is a group that is, by a VAST majority, strongly anti-gun control and highly supportive of individual gun rights.
FWIW, there's the usual republican vs. democrat rant as to who is or isn't for more control, but IMHO, that doesn't seem to be the case with gun-control anymore, at least about carry issues. I know a LOT of dem's who own guns and will be the first to support the 2nd Amendment or oppose gun-control, while I also know a lot of republicans who support tougher laws and restrictions. Personally, I thinks it's now become more of a cultural and geographic bias than political affiliation where gun-control is concerned.
Last edited by rachilders; April 30th, 2007 at 10:43 AM.
"... Americans... we want a safe home, to keep the money we make and shoot bad guys." -- Denny Crane
April 30th, 2007 10:26 AM
I think those that have been adjugdicated (sp?) mentally unstable. Being a danger to themsleves or others should be kept listed in NCIS.
I can see a problem with some one ruling that anyone who wants to own a gun must be unstable and therefore can not own one. You know a Catch 22
“You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can convince one man by logic.”
― Robert A. Heinlein,
April 30th, 2007 11:30 AM
I think that it COULD be a good idea IF repeat IF clear cut guidelines are established...and those guidelines should not preclude anyone who has ever gone to talk to a shrink from purchasing. The guidelines should only include those who are obviously a threat. The problem is that these guidelines are too subjective and will never be met.
The keys to winning a gunfight are first to bring a gun and secondly to take your time, quickly.
Always remember that if your opponent is within range, so are you.
POWER TO THE MEPEOPLE!!!
April 30th, 2007 12:11 PM
I think one of the problems here is how the question is presented (or spun)...asking if "crazy" people should be allowed to buy guns is a lot different than the following:
Do you believe that your doctor(s) should be able to contact the federal government and place your name on a list of people not allowed to buy or possess a gun?
Depending on what state you live in and how psych issues are handed this can be a big concern. In some areas for example it is a lot easier to get "committed" than it is in other areas. This is not a clear cut and dry case of being insane.
April 30th, 2007 12:41 PM
I feel its a bad Idea for 2 reasons.
1. How are we going to differentate between people with personality disorders, pathological mental health issues, and people who are undergo treatment for shortterm mental health problems. Just because someone has received mental health care doesn't make them unfit. I think something like this would set back mental health 50 years to where we're just locking up anyone with mental health concerns and keeping them sedated. Or we're going to have more people afraid to seek mental health care for fear of repurcussions.
2. If we give the government the right to arbitrary access to our mental health records for purposes of gun control whats next?
Medical records are conficential and need to remain that way.
We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.
By paramedic70002 in forum General Firearm Discussion
Last Post: April 11th, 2014, 07:08 PM
By glock27mark in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Last Post: February 10th, 2008, 08:35 PM
By fitznig in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: April 26th, 2006, 10:39 PM
By mrshonts in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: March 13th, 2005, 12:23 PM
Search tags for this page
antidepressants concealed carry
are medical records checked when applying for a texas concealed carry license
dates of mental health records in ncis database
lifetime tracking dangerously mentally ill
opposition to reporting mentally ill to the ncis
placement mental ill after involuntary evaluation arizona
texas chl medical records actually look
Click on a term to search for related topics.