Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
So how private do health records become? Doesn't that violate privacy issues? Cue the ACLU in 3, 2, 1...
It's kind of ironic because there are going to people who argue for stricter gun control yet won't want invade someones privacy in order to prevent them from purchasing a firearm.
It is ridiculous though that it was so easy for this nutjob to get a gun. So much for the Brady Bill.
Certainly not an easy issue. IMO, it's not unreasonable to check someone's mental health history when they want to buy a gun. Nobody would really need to know why an individual failed the background check. It would just come back as "Not Eligible"...the seller wouldn't know why. Just a thought.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
If someone is court certified Mentally Ill, they should not be able to buy a weapon. This statement was true on 9/10/2001, this statement is true today. Far different than wiretapping/reading emails, etc without a court-order.
It's probably just me Jon... but the lines seem quite blurred here... The Patriot Act (which you didn't comment on) and the NSA Wire Taps are controlled by courts and congress, and are specifically designed to minimize the chances of another 9/11th and/or Va Tech type terror event in our country. Now, what's the purpose of preventing a Mentally Ill person from buying a weapon??
Again, I don't see how this violates privacy issues. A PUBLIC COURT declared him Mentally Ill, and a danger to himself and others.
I agree, and this information should have been available when the background check was conducted. It's not like they're looking at his private records about herpes infections or something
Again, I don't see how this violates privacy issues. A PUBLIC COURT declared him Mentally Ill, and a danger to himself and others.
Other than the NRA, who is disagreeing that this should be done? Is the ACLU really against restricing gun access to the mentally Ill or are the righties here just taking a cheap shot?
But there aren't that many instances where a public court deems someone unstable. What happens next time when a depressed/bi polar/suicidal individual who was seeing a private shrink at his own will goes postal and does something similar? Those records won't be public. Should they be included in the screening as well? The answer is yes they should, but due to privacy laws they will never be part of the screening process.
But there aren't that many instances where a public court deems someone unstable. What happens next time when a depressed/bi polar/suicidal individual who was seeing a private shrink at his own will goes postal and does something similar? Those records won't be public. Should they be included in the screening as well? The answer is yes they should, but due to privacy laws they will never be part of the screening process.
Exactly, this is where freedom meets it's price IMO.
You can prevent a lot of things if you're willing to do away with privacy, most people in the mental health profession will tell you that if you make the stigma for going to seek help worse by banning people from all kinds of activities just for seeking help that it will only stop people from seeking help.
There just isn't a great way to prevent what happend, it looks preventable but then again for every kid that does what this kid did, there are thousands with similar symptoms who never go that far.
It's a bad deal but again IMO it's pretty much senseless and trying to make sense out of it isn't going to get far IMO.
__________________
At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.
Exactly, this is where freedom meets it's price IMO.
You can prevent a lot of things if you're willing to do away with privacy, most people in the mental health profession will tell you that if you make the stigma for going to seek help worse by banning people from all kinds of activities just for seeking help that it will only stop people from seeking help.
There just isn't a great way to prevent what happend, it looks preventable but then again for every kid that does what this kid did, there are thousands with similar symptoms who never go that far.
It's a bad deal but again IMO it's pretty much senseless and trying to make sense out of it isn't going to get far IMO.
I think reasonable people can agree that nobody is attempting to stigmatize or "ban" mentally ill people from all kinds of activities - just from purchasing guns...
IMO, it's not unreasonable to check someone's mental health history when they want to buy a gun. Nobody would really need to know why an individual failed the background check. It would just come back as "Not Eligible"...the seller wouldn't know why. Just a thought.
__________________
"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please."
-Samuel Langhorne Clemens
Again, I don't see how this violates privacy issues. A PUBLIC COURT declared him Mentally Ill, and a danger to himself and others.
And that's the key piece. If he had sought private help, HIPAA rules would prevent the use of that info for things like weapons checks or anything else, UNLESS -- assuming all states are similar to AZ -- the psychologist or psychiatrist seeing him believed he posed an imminent danger to himself, or to named or specific others.
We are simply unable to predict actual violence in generic form unless someone has been similarlyor routinely violent before. But if someone I'm evaluating says they are preoccupied with killing their girlfriend and report stalking behavior and a weapon, or say they fantasize constantly about bombing the bus that stops in front of their house and they bought a book on explosives and some materials, AND I determine there is a problem with reality testing, or impulse control, or whatever, then I am legally required to report this to the appropriate authorities, AND warn the intended target.
But once it's in a court record that he HAS been declared DTS or DTO, it should be available in a thorough background check, and I believe, that should preclude gun purchases.
I also have to say that unfortunately, a lot of the evaluations for DTO/DTS are grossly inadequate -- the contracts go to the low bidder, there is considerable pressure to be very quick rather than take the time to be thorough, there is often no actual psychological testing just a superficial interview, and in some places (like locally) unless someone is literally waving a gun and screaming wildly, it is so hard to get a DTO finding that the evaluator rarely tries.
__________________
oderint dum metuant (Latin for 'let them hate, so long as they fear').
Well, in truth I'm actually not a total hawk, but I'm not a dove either -- I'm more like an angry pigeon flying over the political arena after a really big meal. -Abba Gav
It's been awhile since I've purchased a handgun, but my memory is that there is a question on the form, something like "have you ever......... mental illness." Now THERE'S a wasted question!!!
But Zenny is correct.... If a court rules on a mental deficiency, or a psychiatrist/psycologist et al has come to the legal point of having to notify the authorites and perhaps an intended victim about a patient, then this should be reported to a database that is used (along with NCIC) on determining whether or not someone can purchase a new firearm.
For the record, my bride and I own 5 handguns.
__________________
Here's to the Army and Navy and the battles they have won; here's to America's colors, the colors that never run. May the wings of liberty never lose a feather. ....
It's been awhile since I've purchased a handgun, but my memory is that there is a question on the form, something like "have you ever......... mental illness." Now THERE'S a wasted question!!!
But Zenny is correct.... If a court rules on a mental deficiency, or a psychiatrist/psycologist et al has come to the legal point of having to notify the authorites and perhaps an intended victim about a patient, then this should be reported to a database that is used (along with NCIC) on determining whether or not someone can purchase a new firearm.
My question is and maybe this isn't fair since he was in college, but where is the family? How can their son be THAT sick and they don't know?
When that Filipino kid plotted to blow up DeAnza College in Cupertino a few years ago(he was going to shoot people in the library and then when they fled, the bombs would start going off all over campus) he was living at home, and building pipe bombs in his room, and his parents didn't know. That was unfathomable to me.
Cho was at least out of the house, but with all the complaints from teachers, roomates, stalked women, wouldn't his family have HAD to know something was up and considered putting him in a facility?
I guess I can't fathom someone being that good of an actor that people at school know he's got issues, but his parents and family can't see it?
I'm not blaming the family I just can't for the life of me understand how so many people saw this and reported him and nobody ever stepped in and committed the whack job?
Linear Mode
