CBS 60 Mins: Track mentally ill via federal dbase?

[ccw9mm]

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?

Yes, exactly. The "this" we're speaking of is: abuse of the information. Due to experience in a number of areas outside the specifically medical areas such experts are familiar with, many of us are equally qualified to speak of such things. A simple white coat (and the studying that goes with it) does not confer god-like knowledge or insight, outside the area of "medical conditions."

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[SammyIamToday]

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.

I agree that the individual you're speaking of doesn't need a firearm. However, you said it yourself that he would get it anyway if he wanted on. Sure, it could be made slightly more difficult, but it could never be stopped. No prohibition in the history of mankind has ever worked. Throwing away freedoms and vast amounts of money on programs that can't fix the entire problem or even a majority of it is a waste.

There might be an answer for this situation, but this proposed bill isn't it.

[cagueits]

If an individual goes crazy just before commiting a crime, what good was the database anyways? If he is commited to a mental institution, he shouldn't be getting out until he is stable in the brain housing group - again, what good is the database if the guy is under custody?

Theres no need for a database compiling reasons why one should not purchase a firearm, a simple check for arrest warrants is enoughf and costs less.

[downrange]

voted no. diagnosing someone "mentally ill" has too many shades of gray and would get out of control at some point when more and more restrictions get applied by a select few who judged them. ...as well as harder and harder to track.

[ELCruisr]

If he is commited to a mental institution, he shouldn't be getting out until he is stable in the brain housing group - again, what good is the database if the guy is under custody?

But they are released, all the time, without a cure, despite what the family warns.

[mmwb]

Still pretty close on the votes. So...assuming an acceptable definition of "mentally ill" could not be found, should that variable be completely removed from the current screening process altogether?

[floridaguy911]

I voted NO. Absolutely not. Just another way to introduce a *new great plan* that will be turned into another, more radical plan later on to the Governments advantage. On top of that the ELECTED judges (As in a previous post) would be just that, judges- not Doctors. Even further, mental illness is a subjective matter. Its a very bad idea. No way.. NO FREAKING WAY.

[cphilip]

Another thing to keep in mind is that a person suffering like Cao did does not think he/she is crazy. What is "normal" to them is how they think. They have no reference point to compare normal to abnormal because what they think and feels is all they know. It is normal to them... and as far as they are concerned WE are all the crazy ones because we seem to not know that. They think we should be thinking like them!

What is normal and what is abnormal is all subjective depending on where you are standing.

[PapaScout]

Still pretty close on the votes. So...assuming an acceptable definition of "mentally ill" could not be found, should that variable be completely removed from the current screening process altogether?

Maybe. :) We all want to keep the crazies from getting guns. We could all probably agree that someone with a history of violence and mental evaluation should not have a gun... but what about the person who spanked their kid, social services paid them a visit, and they were directed to take an anger management class?

The situation becomes so complicated that, just like insurance, this checking will be reduced to a list of codes. If your situation is branded with one of the codes on the list you lose your gun rights.

Know anyone who's had to fight insurance because of the wrong code being used by someone at the hospital?

[walvord]

Absolutely not, period. It would be abused

[INTJ]

These folks are treating symptoms and not the problem! Lets fix the stinking problem.

Thank You Very Much.

[INTJ]

Excuse me but I have a question!

Its referred to as the least restrictive type of treatment, usually based on expression to harm self or others.

[RandyC]

Our biggest problem in violent crime is repeat offenders, people who should still be in jail. Let's concentrate on that problem first.

Whenever I hear the term "federal data base" I get the Big Brother willies. I have absolutely no confidence in any type of federal program to keep me safer. And I don't need some faceless federal bureaucrat deciding who needs to be watched or removed "for our own good".

They're trying to convince us they can stop lightning from striking again. They can't. Maybe they can stop one incident from happening down the line but, as far as I'm concerned, I've about run out of patience with this incremental "it's for the children" erosion of our liberties.

[rodc13]

I voted No because there are too many ways to define mental illness and it is all very subjective.

Another big problem would be that of our Veterans from Vietnam, Desert Storm, Or Iraq and Afghanistan who might have problems with PTSD issues. While military or VA docs might diagnosis the problem and it might improve over time, the soldier's name entered in a national data base might keep him from receiving a concealed carry permit for the rest of his or her life.

Very slippery slope here.

In Texas, the mental health part on the application form asks if the applicant for a CHL has ever been committed, either voluntarily or involuntarily to a mental treatment facility. Even Veterans with some PTSD issues are not prohibited from a CHL, as long as they have not served time as an inpatient at a mental health facility. Other states might not see it the same way and even the diagnosis of PTSD listed in some sort of national database could really screw up a Veteran's life.

Like I said above, very slippery slope here.

I voted no for similar reasons to DaveT. The definitions are too varied and subjective. With a criminal record, at least it's a matter of "did you or didn't you" -- Is there a conviction on your record or not?

I also feel that the potential for abuse of such a database is huge, and privacy concerns are very real. The existence of this type of far-reaching database might also discourage some individuals from seeking treatment. While I wish there were a magic bullet to eliminate threats, I'm not altogether comfortable with this option.

[downrange]

well, lets look at it this way. if everyone was sane and well balanced, would we need to carry in the first place? it's human nature for one to live with piece of mind and to do what it takes to assure that. throwing another maze in the works is just that. a labyrinth of unmanageable s*&t to only make things worse. it is pretty close in the poll, but i only see the "no" votes posting the comments. i'd like to see the other side of these opinions. i mean this with no hostility intended, just curiosity and want to learn why. ...hey, that's why i came here in the first place.