CBS 60 Mins: Track mentally ill via federal dbase? - Page 5

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 farronwolf Or are we saying that the people that participate in this forum are more knowledgable about this issue than professionals in ...

View Poll Results: NICS database requirement that states track the mentally ill?

Voters
153. You may not vote on this poll
  • Good idea

    68 44.44%
  • Bad idea

    85 55.56%
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 61 to 75 of 75
  1. #61
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,963
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    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."
    Last edited by ccw9mm; May 1st, 2007 at 10:30 AM.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.


  2. #62
    VIP Member Array SammyIamToday's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    2,087
    Quote Originally Posted by ELCruisr View Post
    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.
    ...He suggested that "every American citizen" should own a rifle and train with it on firing ranges "at every courthouse." -Chesty Puller

  3. #63
    Senior Member Array cagueits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Puerto Rico
    Posts
    911
    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.

  4. #64
    Senior Member Array downrange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    levittown PA
    Posts
    584
    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.
    What's this button do?

  5. #65
    VIP Member Array ELCruisr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Central FL
    Posts
    2,073
    Quote Originally Posted by cagueits View Post
    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.
    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.

  6. #66
    Member Array mmwb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Western Wyoming
    Posts
    86
    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?

  7. #67
    Member Array floridaguy911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    FLORIDA
    Posts
    486
    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.
    N.R.A. Member
    G.O.A. Member
    Unified Sportsmen of Florida Member

  8. #68
    VIP Member Array cphilip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,187
    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.

  9. #69
    Senior Member Array PapaScout's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    569
    Quote Originally Posted by mmwb View Post
    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?
    "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."

  10. #70
    Senior Member Array walvord's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    St. Charles County Missouri
    Posts
    991

    NO

    Absolutely not, period. It would be abused
    The most exhilarating thing in life is getting shot at with no results.
    - Winston Churchill
    Endowment Life Member - NRA
    Life Member - GOA
    Member - Oath Keepers, SAF, CCRKBA
    U.S. Army (72G) 1975-1980

  11. #71
    Senior Member Array INTJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Middle Tennessee
    Posts
    596
    Quote Originally Posted by preachertim View Post
    These folks are treating symptoms and not the problem! Lets fix the stinking problem.

    Thank You Very Much.
    "Beware of the man who only owns one gun. He probably knows how to use it."

  12. #72
    Senior Member Array INTJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Middle Tennessee
    Posts
    596
    Quote Originally Posted by Timmy Jimmy View Post
    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.
    "Beware of the man who only owns one gun. He probably knows how to use it."

  13. #73
    Member Array RandyC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    39
    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.

  14. #74
    VIP Member Array rodc13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    2,753
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveT View Post
    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.
    Cheers,
    Rod
    "We're paratroopers. We're supposed to be surrounded!" Dick Winters

  15. #75
    Senior Member Array downrange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    levittown PA
    Posts
    584
    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.
    What's this button do?

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. When Can We Deny Gun Rights to Mentally Ill?
    By paramedic70002 in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: April 11th, 2014, 07:08 PM
  2. 11 people shot in 90 mins.
    By glock27mark in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: February 10th, 2008, 08:35 PM
  3. MORE BAD RAP FOR GUNS IN SEATTLE (well 30 mins away)
    By fitznig in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: April 26th, 2006, 10:39 PM
  4. Should Mentally Ill Adults have carry permits?
    By mrshonts in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 52
    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.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors