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 Timmy Jimmy
If you have been determined to be a danger to yourself or to someone else why are you not in ...
View Poll Results: NICS database requirement that states track the mentally ill?
- 153. You may not vote on this poll
April 30th, 2007 07:43 PM
Because starting about forty years ago this country began disassembling our mental health system. Take a look at this post that went up over on the Volokh Conspiracy this morning. In 1955 there were 786 people per 100,000 in mental institutions. Today the rate is less than a twentieth of that. Did America suddenly become a lot more sane starting in the late 1960s? Or do we have a lot of people walking around with mental disorders that would have gotten them locked up half a century ago?
Originally Posted by Timmy Jimmy
April 30th, 2007 07:54 PM
"Or do we have a lot of people walking around with mental disorders that would have gotten them locked up half a century ago?"
There is no doubt as to that there are plenty of people walking around with mental health problems that would have been "locked up" a half century ago. It is fortunate for many as many were locked up that are readily able to improve and live relatively normal lives among us. Institutionalization has its place. In the past too many were too easily institutionalized. Often it was more because of the general public's level of discomfort with them. We are far more capable in terms of both therapies and medical interventions then we we were then.
We could do better now. Day treatment programs would far better serve most of those with signficant mental health problems right now, rather than institutionalization. Either way you go with it, there does not appear to be a rush to fund the care needed.
April 30th, 2007 08:10 PM
Timmy Jimmy asked an interesting question. Why are these people on the street if they are determined to have some type of mental issue/s. Simple. Money.
I could go on but will leave it at that.
April 30th, 2007 09:06 PM
Exactly! Money goes where people's priorities are. The fact is, mental health care is not a big priority.
April 30th, 2007 09:53 PM
I voted "yes" even though the many posts regarding the government abusing or otherwise messing it up are probably correct. Nobody can misuse information like this more than the government. That being said, I work in the downtown Phoenix area where scores of homeless walk the streets day and night. What they all seem to have in common is that they are utterly out of their mind. They should not be out on the street, IMHO, much less be out there armed. Before anything like this is passed, though, the definition needs to be made that would make the law apply to those with severe mental illness.
I agree with rachilders that the reluctance of some to post that they voted yes is that they prefer not to risk getting flamed, which is unfortunate.
Coimhéad fearg fhear na foighde; Beware the anger of a patient man.
April 30th, 2007 09:59 PM
Not sure I know enough to take an unwaivering stand. It seems a person with criminal history had the protection of the constitution throughout the process of being convicted. I'm not sure the same level of constitutional protection goes into being committed or recommended to mental health treatment. Such a rule might just keep a person who has a minor mental health defect from seeking help. I can't see one or two trips for counseling keeping a person from self protection for life.
As you might have guessed, I voted "No". Although I don't want folks with mental health defects to have the ability to do harm to others or themselves, when in doubt, I vote for constitutional rights. Enter due process protections along with recognition that the mental problem is corrected and I could be convinced to change my vote.
I feel strongly both ways
April 30th, 2007 10:08 PM
While there is some truth in that, you have to remember that there were several well documented cases of horrific abuse in Mental Hospitals at the same time that the courts were ruling more liberally on issues regarding the right of the state to lock people up against there will when they, in many cases, had not committed any crime. They were simply mentally ill and they had never hurt themselves or anyone else. Nor had they committed any property crime.
Originally Posted by Arkhangel
To say that this is a slippery slope is somewhat of an understatement!
Locking someone up for years if not a lifetime because they suffer from Bi-Polar disorder, is like locking up a diabetic.
I would like to see the most seriously ill receive the treatment they need in a hospital setting, but we have already seen the type of abuse that this can lead to.
For me personally, I'd rather err on the side of individual rights. NO Mental Health "List"! JMO
April 30th, 2007 10:36 PM
Riddle me this...What's to stop say...the Judge and the Shrink concurring that anyone with more than say...10 guns is dangerous?
With that question you can figure what my vote is.
"My God David, We're a Civilized society."
"Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the crap out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."
-The Mist (2007)
April 30th, 2007 10:43 PM
Track mentally ill via federal database
I think that ones mental health should be a deciding factor. Just like people who have had multiple DUIs. But only if they are deemed to be dangerous to themselves or others. Which is really the samething, both are dangerous to have around, a drunk or nut job in a car or a lunatic with a gun.
If someone is on an antidepressant that should not be enough to warrant a refusal.
May 1st, 2007 06:19 AM
Well, I come at this as the relative of a person who was dangerously mentally ill. In fact one time he did get a firearm (this was way back in the day, no preventing it) and decided to kill all of us. I was just a small kid who didn't understand what was up with his big brother. It took my father's courage to walk up to him and take it away, thankfully without being shot.
He was often normal but also at times very dangerous. We, as a family, had one heck of a hard time getting anyone to do a damn thing about it. He was sent to state hospitals several times and "cured" (What a joke). I'm sorry folks but there are people out there with mental illness who you do not want to have a firearm. In his case, if he could not walk into a place and get one easy, he would lose the impulse and do something else. Could he get one illegally? Of course but if we really enforced existing laws aggressively, that would be tougher to do and he wouldn't of worked that hard to get one.
Those who have been ruled mentally incompetent, not simply admitted for observation (those are different things) need to be evaluated as to their ability to responsibly own a firearm. Many won't be capable of it and need to be restricted.
If you stand up and be counted, from time to time you may get yourself knocked down. But remember this: A man flattened by an opponent can get up again. A man flattened by conformity stays down for good. ~ Thomas J. Watson, Jr.
May 1st, 2007 07:03 AM
Being "taken" by men in white coats for 72hrs evaluation might well be all that's needed. That, and a friendly judge. Remember unwarranted wire taps? You think those only began since 2001? (Ha. Unwarranted indeed.)
Originally Posted by mmwb
It can easily be abused. This country's government has a strong, unbroken history of abuse of such things. And all of this assumes a judge will even be a part of it. One would think that being "committed" would be a far longer term for treatment, and that mere evaluation wouldn't be tantamount to commitment. But laws are tricky buggers once they're on the books, after which point the average Joe doesn't have much say about exactly how they get implemented, short of changing them.
With mental health commitment being a hook for giving CHL/CCW the hook, whatever is done it must be kept in the light of day, under strong lights, constantly. It must have oversight. Its operation must be public and brutally transparent. However, we're speaking of people's medical health here. The likelihood of that being public and in full view is, in all practicality, nil. (HIIPA and whatnot.)
So. Judgment that cannot be "proven"; it's a condition that isn't understood; definitions are soft and have changed since the inception of the terms; there would be lack of oversight due to the sensitivity of the information; it would be run by government hacks, the standards set by government hacks and ajudged by government hacks. Would such a thing run smoothly, be uncorrupted, and actually work to defend and support that most vital and basic freedom, the freedom to defend yourself? I'm not so cynical as to believe that a government cannot get it right, but the U.S. doesn't have such a very good record the past 50 yrs.
And then there's the mere fact that an appreciable percentage of those who don't understand firearms think those who do are a few corn cobs short of a bushel, anyway. You've all heard it before, either directly to your face or second-hand from a friend who has heard the whispering, regarding your interest in and knowledge of firearms. Dumb. But, with something so amorphous as defining who's off-kilter, dangerous as well.
It comes to this: Who would judge, by what standards would people be judged, and how transparent and visible would the process be, in order to ensure non-abuse by a motivated government or individuals. Until that can be determined and agreed to, it's a morass missing only a the government functionaries to keep it humming along. However, at what cost/risk? Arbitrary, abusive functioning impacting everyone's right to legally acquire, own or carry a firearm, forever.
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.
May 1st, 2007 08:56 AM
a strong definite yes.
the database in question is for people deamed mentally ill and a threat to themselves/others:
seriously, what problem could you POSSIBLY have with that?!
"The key criteria that should trigger the report is the finding of danger -- if somebody had been determined mentally ill, and they are determined to be a danger to themselves or others to such a degree that they are ordered to receive involuntary treatment," Mr. Kaine said at a press conference with Attorney General Bob McDonnell. "Whether that treatment is to be provided in an inpatient or outpatient facility is of no moment."
May 1st, 2007 09:04 AM
I voted no, what or who defines mental illness? Are there certain ones that are ok or do all get the same treatment. What if you get treated for alcholismor a counsilor for work related stress will that be considered an illness worthy of the list. It seems to me that it would be miss used like all the other sounds like a good idea plans.
If the checks they do now don't work why add another one that won't stop someone from getting a gun.
May 1st, 2007 09:51 AM
I voted yes, simply because there are people who should not legally be allowed to own a firearm. If you have a mental health issue that makes you a threat to yourself or society you really should not be allowed to purchase a firearm. Just as those who have a violent past should not be allowed a firearm either after a felony or some other conviction that would indicate that they would harm someone else, or threaten society.
I am not for more gun laws, but common sense tells me that we can make some of the gun laws, and for that matter other laws more sensible, in order for them to do what they are intended to do.
We currently have laws on the books that do not allow someone under 18 to purchase a firearm, which I agree with. There are people out there well over the age of 18 that in fact do not have the mental capability to make decisions that a normal adult would make. Does anyone here advocate that people who have a significant mentally retarded condition be allowed to purchase firearms?
I don't have a problem with qualified mental health personel reporting into a government database to flag someone as a person that should not be allowed to purchase a firearm. (By the way, for those that are concerned with HIPPA, I believe that TB, Aids, and other medical conditions require that medical personel inform government offices and members of the public that you have come in contact with of the conditions for the sake of society) If their condition changes they could be given the right back. Currently that is not the case, once you have been committed you are banned for life. If we don't trust the people that work in the field of mental health, how do we trust the people that work in any field. Or are we saying that the people that participate in this forum are more knowledgable about this issue than professionals in the mental health field?
Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
Texas CHL Instructor
Texas Hunter Education Instructor
May 1st, 2007 09:59 AM
In the age where everything in our society is "fixed" with a pill pushed by both the medical community and the pharma community, and in the age where there are so many hidden agendas and political posturing I believe it to be dangerous to create a loop-hole in the gun laws that could potentially affect millions of Americans based on a few simple wordings.
Know anyone who has taken medicine for hormone imbalance, mild depression, spoken with a councilor, a priest? Where does it stop? And how difficult would it be to have the description of "mental illness" changed as it relates to gun control once in place?
Your cousin Eddie who had difficulties with a past relationship goes to see a marriage councilor. A month later he kills his estranged spouse, the dog, and himself. Now the lobbyists seek to add marriage counciling to "the List" because "obviously" that was a sign that good old cousin Eddie was unstable and not to be trusted.
I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of violent crazies but I don't trust our society to decide this fairly.
"If you so much as bunny hop I'll cut your heart out!" Billy Bob Thornton in The Last Real Cowboys
"I carry a gun for the same reason that I carry health insurance and a cell phone - be prepared."
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.