cb1000rider wrote:Clarify for me, I purchased through an FFL recently and believe there was a question about mental illness.. I assume that answering "yes" to that question would mean that the FFL shuts down the sale? I honestly don't remember the verbiage of the question, but I thought it included depression, etc... It's the same sort of "self-reporting" that the FAA expects from pilots, but it's used in conjunction with not-optional doctor visits to clear pilots every so often (depending on age).
Sure you can lie... Or I suppose you can be so mentally deficient that you're not aware.. I agree that it's really not much of a mental health check.
No, it's fairly specific: it has to be an adjudication of incompetence and/or of danger to self or others, or involuntary commitment.
As per ATF's online version of the form -
"Question 11.f. Adjudicated Mentally Defective:
A determination by a court,
board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked
subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:
(1) is a danger to himself or to others; or (2) lacks the mental capacity to contract
or manage his own affairs. This term shall include: (1) a finding of insanity by a
court in a criminal case; and (2) Those persons found incompetent to stand trial or
found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility.
Committed to a Mental Institution:
A formal commitment of a person to a
mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The
term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily. The term
includes commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness. It also includes
commitments for other reasons, such as for drug use. The term does not include a
person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental
institution. Please also refer to Question 11.c. for the definition of a prohibited
person.
EXCEPTION to 11. f. NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007
:
A person
who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental
institution is not prohibited if: (1) the person was adjudicated or committed
by a
department or agency of the Federal Government
, such as the United States
Department of Veteran’s Affairs (“VA”) (as opposed to a State court, State board,
or other lawful State authority);
and (2) either: (a) the person’s adjudication or
commitment for mental incompetency was set-aside or expunged by the
adjudicating/committing agency; (b) the person has been fully released or
discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring by the
agency; or (c) the person was found by the agency to no longer suffer from the
mental health condition that served as the basis of the initial adjudication.
Persons who fit this exception should answer “no” to Item 11.f.
This
exception does not apply to any person who was adjudicated to be not guilty by
reason of insanity, or based on lack of mental responsibility, or found incompe-
tent to stand trial, in any criminal case or under the Uniform Code of Military
Justice."
http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download ... 4473-1.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
cb1000rider wrote:You're asserting that there is no statistical relationship between mental illness and various violent acts? That is, the depressed are just as likely as as the non-depressed to be involved in suicide? That that just doesn't sound right to me, but I haven't looked at the data. Certainly the vast majority of the mentally ill - those who are bi-polar, those with schizophrenia don't necessarily commit violent actions. But are they more likely than the general public to do so? If the answer is yes, then perhaps there is value in restricting privileges that can cause harm to others.. like piloting an aircraft... and perhaps there is value in restricting rights too - such as the right to carry a firearm.
If you're correct, statistically, and there is no statistical relationship between specific mental illnesses and a greater propensity for violence, then I 100% completely agree that no restriction is necessary or warranted...
I'm certain that some diagnosis of mental disorder or disability can be made for any and all of us, to include murderers and those who attempt or succeed at suicide. That aside, I refer back to the principle that one cannot violate an innocent person's rights just because some other person who may share characteristics with the innocent committed a violent crime or did violence to themselves. If the statistical argument trumped this principle, then we would be justified in telling blacks they can't have guns, or poor people, or people who live in crime-ridden areas (except we've done all these at different points in time, and it's always failed, proving the point fairly bloodily. Prima facie example? Chicago/D.C./etc.).
cb1000rider wrote:
Trust me, as a pilot, I get it. If I had medical records that ever indicated treatment for being bi-polar or having ADHD, I'm done. If I had records that indicate any prior treatment for depression, the burden of proof is on me to provide - through medical documentation - that I'm fit to fly and in remission. Getting the type of qualified MD / Psychiatrist that the FAA will accept to write that note typically costs thousands of dollars after extensive evaluation.
So ask a pilot if he'd report a bout of depression to his primary healthcare professional. Tying gun ownership to a similar process would have similar results.
It's a bit like the TSA - they're there to make us feel safe. What added value there is per what they cost, is ludicrous.
Again, this illustrates the absurdity of the "if it saves one life" argument: namely, that it doesn't. I've a bit of a feeling you're playing "devil's advocate" with me, but I'm game.
Point being, I'm sure there's pilots out there with said "mental disorders" who fly just fine every day, just as there are soldiers, cops, firefighters, and doctors with them too, who also perform their jobs well. Outliers do not, and should not be allowed to, demonstrate the majority, and the majority should not be forced to surrender rights because of those outliers. (Actually, neither should the minority be forced to surrender rights because of a majority with problems, either; but my libertarian is showing)
cb1000rider wrote:That sounds good to me. But as you're aware, you can't test for this propensity with 100% accuracy in advance.. And locking them up afterwards is too late.
No, you can't test for it with any accuracy in advance at all. Nor should we look at doing so; such is the same reasoning eugenics promoters gave for encouraging sterilization and worse among "undesirables," as the children of said undesirables were more "likely" to commit crimes, be poor, etc. They even had statistics to back themselves up. That doesn't make them right, however.
Any test that is intended to predict future action is flawed at its heart. We cannot even predict the weather; a human being, an individual, is at LEAST as complex as a weather system. Any test so devised would have to consider millions, if not billions, of variables, the slightest change in any of which can throw off the whole equation. This does not take into account other non-quantifiable factors, either, such as personal morality, faith, and sheer pig-headed human willfulness. If you can't quantify it, you can't predict it. All you can do is analyze past trends, and attempt to project them into the future. We see how well this works with weather.
It's not too late for the next attack, however. Look at the successful attacks by spree killers and mass-shooters; the high body-count incidents (which is what they're going for) always occur in areas where the attacker isn't "allowed" to have a gun. The Aurora shooter bypassed closer theaters to shoot up the one with "No Gun" signs; the closer ones allowed CCW. The Sandy Hook shooter attacked an elementary school. Both could be said to have had severe mental problems (and probably did), but they were rational enough to figure out what areas would make them able to act as a virtual "god of death," and what areas could possibly have resistance, then make the optimal choice for their twisted goals. Mentally ill they may have been, insane possibly, but not stupid by any means. Each and every time they demonstrated thought and foresight, and the ability to cogently plan.
Look at the shooting that wounded Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords for contrast. The shooter, probably deranged, targeted a single person first, body count to come later - and failed. Giffords is still alive, and armed citizens took down the gunman. If we allowed mental illness to become the "new black" or whatever current trendy perjorative we have today, who's to say that there would have been ANYONE to stop him? After all, according to DSM 5, everyone is mentally ill, and the lack of any diagnosis is itself a diagnosis of illness.
Instead of trying to prevent mass-shooting attacks and spree killers through removal of quantifiable rights, we need to address the issue through human behavior, which is both cause and solution to the problem. Eliminate victim disarmament zones. Heap scorn on the killers for their actions, instead of heaping sympathy on them for their presumed illnesses. Promote morals, values, and rights, all individual characteristics, instead of allowing people to shift blame onto some claimed or verified illness. The illness didn't make them do it; they chose to. Accept people are capable of doing evil for completely rational, sane thoughts; accept that evil people do evil because they wanted to, instead of blaming something else. Call evil "evil."
[/soapbox]
If you're older and don't think quite as quickly, as on-your-feet as you used to, then you've got "decreased mental capacity" and are ineligible; never mind the fact that age, wisdom, and experience have combined to allow you to make far -better- decisions than you used to, you're "impaired" because you make slow good decisions, not fast bad ones. My wife points out over my shoulder that DSM 5 classifies pregnancy as a mental disorder for some reason. She's also discovered that DSM 5 classifies a lack of other mental illnesses itself as an illness. IE, "normality" is an "illness."