Mental Illness Database?

[Lucky45]

hey patrick. Thank you. finally we are starting to look at the problem from all angles. and I like your suggestions. that is how a real discussion works. because we have to look at it both ways.

also seamus, I think you are drifting from my point. I never suggested physical confinement. I was taling about, like patrick put it, temporarily suspending certain spelled mental cases where you can't buy a gun.

[seamusTX]

Hmmm... I thought "dealing with dangerous people" was the focus of what I wrote. ???

I'm not sure exactly how to respond to what you wrote as I don't see
how it directly applies to what I wrote.

I mean dealing with dangerous people by preventing them from committing any violent act, whether with a legally purchased firearm, a vehicle, a homemade bomb, a bathtub, or their bare hands.

In some cases this will mean confinement under judicial supervision. In others, it might mean outpatient treatment for mental illness with frequent monitoring (in some cases, daily phone calls or house arrest with electronic monitoring).

The vast majority of firearms owners will never commit a crime, and adding legal hurdles is an infringement of their rights. Criminals and violent mentally ill people will not obey the law. I don't know how to state this more clearly.

- Jim

[seamusTX]

also seamus, I think you are drifting from my point. I never suggested physical confinement. I was taling about, like patrick put it, temporarily suspending certain spelled mental cases where you can't buy a gun.

I am suggesting physical confinement as the only measure that can prevent violence in some cases.

If someone really wants to kill people indiscriminately (as in the Virginia Tech case), they can just get behind the wheel and plow into a crowd of people. This has happened. I don't know why it doesn't happen more often.

- Jim

[PatrickS]

Hmmm... I thought "dealing with dangerous people" was the focus of what I wrote. ???

I'm not sure exactly how to respond to what you wrote as I don't see
how it directly applies to what I wrote.

I mean dealing with dangerous people by preventing them from committing any violent act, whether with a legally purchased firearm, a vehicle, a homemade bomb, a bathtub, or their bare hands.

In some cases this will mean confinement under judicial supervision. In others, it might mean outpatient treatment for mental illness with frequent monitoring (in some cases, daily phone calls or house arrest with electronic monitoring).

The vast majority of firearms owners will never commit a crime, and adding legal hurdles is an infringement of their rights. Criminals and violent mentally ill people will not obey the law. I don't know how to state this more clearly.

- Jim

I think we are talking past one another here.

Dealing with criminals was outside the scope of what I wrote. Certainly
that is part of the puzzle. And I believe that we do indeed need to get
alot "tougher on crime", but my comments were more focused on
how to (a) better manage gun ownership and (b) better identify those
who may fall into that group of individuals who, for whatever reason,
are (or should be) disallowed from owning/handling guns.

I just came across this article, after I wrote my previous post, which
pretty much sums up what I think alot of Americans are thinking about
these days and has to be addressed in some constructive manner.

Though I certainly don't put so much weight on the opinions
or accuracy of a foreign news agency, or any news agency for that
matter, I think this does "hit the nail on the head" and this point of
leverage for the anti-gun lobby could (and should) be entirely eliminated:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1 ... 86,00.html

'In America, "buying a ... gun is often easier than getting a driver's license."'

No, the VA killings (nor most other killings used a machine gun, so I
omitted 'machine' in my quote) and yes, in the case of the VA killings
the guns were purchased legally, so this is really addressing questions
of debate which are merely brought back in the forefront by the anti-gun
lobby as a result of the tragedy in VA, and even though not specifically
relevant, they are still valid issues that remain to be constructively
addressed by 2A advocates.

Yes, criminals will never abide by the law, but at least the legal process
for owning/using guns should IMO be at least as organized as getting
a driver's license. It's one more criteria by which we know who the
true criminals are, while not infringing on the rights of law-abiding and
competent citizens from owning and bearing arms.

[Lucky45]

NEWSFLASH..NEWSFLASH ....NEWSFLASH

Are you sitting down?


The state of Texas has a central DATABASE already which track people who have been diagnosed or perscribed drugs for a mental issue. It is called WEBCARE. didn't cities have separate ones which can be accessed. dallas
' is called Northstar. doctors can access it for search of patients and perscriptions. police can enter names based on arrest.

in church now. but 'daughter' works for harris county just filled me in. be back....service starting

[seamusTX]

I think we are talking past one another here.

Unfortunately, you are right. But I can't seem to express my point more effectively.

- Jim

[PatrickS]

I think we are talking past one another here.

Unfortunately, you are right. But I can't seem to express my point more effectively.

- Jim

Let me try to summarize what I understand you to be saying,
and then you can perhaps clarify for me where I'm maybe
misunderstanding or missing your key points.

You highlight the fact that, in many places where gun ownership
is more structured, there is more violent crime. Fair enough.
Laws do not prevent crimes so much as they identify criminals.
Thus more "control" will not necessarily reduce crime. Criminals
will do as they please.

If that is the point you were making, I agree.

But that was not the primary focus of my original comments in
this thread.

My focus was on the fact that alot of folks are concerned with
the seeming inconsistent/chaotic/broken/full-of-loopholes
system of *legal* gun ownership that exists, particularly where
it concerns those who are mentally incompetent/ill, or merely
inept, and the fact that such concerns are a significant leverage
point for the anti-gun lobby to incite "fence sitters" to support
legislation that will infringe upon our 2A rights.

Having a "better" system for managing gun ownership (yes,
lots of potential flame-bait words there, so folks, please excercise
restraint and take them at face value, in full respect/appreciation
of the 2A) would IMO address another part of this puzzle, and
in a way that would ultimately strengthen appreciation of the 2A
rather than weaken it.

[seamusTX]

Let me try to summarize what I understand you to be saying,...
You highlight the fact that, in many places where gun ownership
is more structured, there is more violent crime. Fair enough.
Laws do not prevent crimes so much as they identify criminals.
Thus more "control" will not necessarily reduce crime. Criminals
will do as they please.

That is my point.

Having a "better" system for managing gun ownership ... would IMO address another part of this puzzle, and in a way that would ultimately strengthen appreciation of the 2A rather than weaken it.

I think a licensing system would be a mechanism for increasing restrictions, without any real benefit in reducing crime or preventing violence by mentally ill people. It could be abused, for example, by an angry spouse or some other person falsely claiming that you threatened them.

Let's look at what happened with cars. Originally, there were no driver licenses, car registrations, inspections, or insurance. Now, all those things are mandatory. Your driver license can be revoked if your physician files an affidavit saying that you have epilepsy or a similar condition.

At one time, drunk driving was winked at unless it cause serious injuries or death. Now, it will get the driver's license suspended or revoked and result in large fines and jail time.

Law-abiding people obey all those laws.

Car keys used to be a simple piece of metal. Now cars are required to have electronic locks that disable the steering wheel and gearshift.

But every day, and I do mean every day, the police deal with crashes where a driver had no license, no registration, no insurance and/or was drunk or under the influence of drugs. Often the car was stolen. No law can stop that kind of thing from happening.

- Jim

[PatrickS]

Let me try to summarize what I understand you to be saying,...
You highlight the fact that, in many places where gun ownership
is more structured, there is more violent crime. Fair enough.
Laws do not prevent crimes so much as they identify criminals.
Thus more "control" will not necessarily reduce crime. Criminals
will do as they please.

That is my point.

Great. Progress.

Having a "better" system for managing gun ownership ... would IMO address another part of this puzzle, and in a way that would ultimately strengthen appreciation of the 2A rather than weaken it.

I think a licensing system would be a mechanism for increasing restrictions, without any real benefit in reducing crime or preventing violence by mentally ill people. It could be abused, for example, by an angry spouse or some other person falsely claiming that you threatened them.

I agree that there is room for abuse, and as I stated, it would be
very important for such a system to have strong bias in favor of
the individual.

Let's look at what happened with cars. Originally, there were no driver licenses, car registrations, inspections, or insurance. Now, all those things are mandatory. Your driver license can be revoked if your physician files an affidavit saying that you have epilepsy or a similar condition.

(a) Do you see rampant abuse in such cases?
(b) Do you really think it's a bad thing that a physician is able to do so?

And again, such a system would need to be structured to both minimize
such abuse, as well as penalize any deliberate abuse. But personally,
I'm very supportive of folks losing the right to drive if/when they
develop a dehibilitating condition, and of folks losing the right to own
a gun if/when they develop a severe mental condition, commit a felony,
etc.

Note, they lose the right, not the ability -- but their loss of that right
becomes a matter of record which can, by the proper authorities,
be checked.

At one time, drunk driving was winked at unless it cause serious injuries or death. Now, it will get the driver's license suspended or revoked and result in large fines and jail time.

Law-abiding people obey all those laws.

Again, there is no disagreement on that point.

Laws identify criminals, and provide the basis for imposing penalties
on illegal actions.

I'm sorry, but it seems you are arguing that because criminals will
disregard the law there is no point in having any laws. ???

Car keys used to be a simple piece of metal. Now cars are required to have electronic locks that disable the steering wheel and gearshift.

But every day, and I do mean every day, the police deal with crashes where a driver had no license, no registration, no insurance and/or was drunk or under the influence of drugs.

But if there weren't laws identifying such activities as prohibited, why
would the police need to be involved. Again, laws identify crimes, they
don't prevent crimes.

Often the car was stolen. No law can stop that kind of thing from happening.

Honestly, I think you are completely missing the points
I was trying to make. I agree completely with the key points you
are arguing yet they are not the same points that were the focus
of my previous postings.

[seamusTX]

Your driver license can be revoked if your physician files an affidavit saying that you have epilepsy or a similar condition.

(a) Do you see rampant abuse in such cases?

No, for two reasons:
1. Your driver license can be suspended only for a physical medical condition that can be verified by objective tests.
2. Driving has not been criminalized. People accept it as normal, and driver licenses are suspended or revoked only in extreme cases.

Many people have the attitude that firearms ownership is inherently criminal, or that firearms owners are inclined to behave violently. I have heard this expressed many times on talk shows in the past week (I listen to some left-wing ones).

In the more restrictive states, you are assumed to be planning a crime if you want to buy a handgun, and must persuade the authorities that you are not.

(b) Do you really think it's a bad thing that a physician is able to do so?

In the case of physical illnesses and driver licenses, I think it's a good idea.

The problem with mental illness is that it's often subjective. Five psychiatrists can examine a patient and come up with three diagnoses. One might say that the patient is not mentally ill.

I'm sorry, but it seems you are arguing that because criminals will disregard the law there is no point in having any laws. ???

I support laws against actions that harm other people, such as assault and theft.

I am opposed to laws that attempt to control people who have done nothing wrong, and probably never will, simply because they possess an object or material that could be used to do harm.

Your home or mine contains dozens of things that could be used for murder, even mass murder by poison; but all the focus is on possession of firearms.

But every day, and I do mean every day, the police deal with crashes where a driver had no license, no registration, no insurance and/or was drunk or under the influence of drugs.

But if there weren't laws identifying such activities as prohibited, why would the police need to be involved.

The police become involved when there is a crash, which is the result of an offense like failing to stop for a red light or failing to yield the right of way.

I think I failed to make my point with the car analogy.

Honestly, I think you are completely missing the points I was trying to make. I agree completely with the key points you are arguing yet they are not the same points that were the focus of my previous postings.

OK. I tried to express myself. It's difficult in this kind of forum. Perhaps someone else will be able to clarify the issues.

I'm hoping that Kevin Craig expresses an opinion.

- Jim

[PatrickS]

Your driver license can be revoked if your physician files an affidavit saying that you have epilepsy or a similar condition.

(a) Do you see rampant abuse in such cases?

No, for two reasons:
1. Your driver license can be suspended only for a physical medical condition that can be verified by objective tests.
2. Driving has not been criminalized. People accept it as normal, and driver licenses are suspended or revoked only in extreme cases.

Many people have the attitude that firearms ownership is inherently criminal, or that firearms owners are inclined to behave violently. I have heard this expressed many times on talk shows in the past week (I listen to some left-wing ones).

In the more restrictive states, you are assumed to be planning a crime if you want to buy a handgun, and must persuade the authorities that you are not.

This actuallly highlights what I see as a benefit to such a license
program: it emphasizes the fact that gun posession is inherently
no more criminal than driving a car.

(b) Do you really think it's a bad thing that a physician is able to do so?

In the case of physical illnesses and driver licenses, I think it's a good idea.

The problem with mental illness is that it's often subjective. Five psychiatrists can examine a patient and come up with three diagnoses. One might say that the patient is not mentally ill.

I'm sorry, but it seems to me that you are choosing to read
only portions of my original post and disregard other portions.
I stated in several places that it would take effort and care to
ensure that the basis for suspensions is such that it is difficult
to abuse while still allowing for valid cases. Again, I agree, with
what you are stating here but I don't see a valid objection to
what I was proposing. "Let's not do that because it might be done
in the wrong way" is not IMO a valid argument for not trying.

I'm sorry, but it seems you are arguing that because criminals will disregard the law there is no point in having any laws. ???

I support laws against actions that harm other people, such as assault and theft.

I am opposed to laws that attempt to control people who have done nothing wrong, and probably never will, simply because they possess an object or material that could be used to do harm.

Your home or mine contains dozens of things that could be used for murder, even mass murder by poison; but all the focus is on possession of firearms.

I appreciate the essence of that argument; however, some "things"
are more hazardous than other "things". It is reasonable for control
to be relative to the danger a given "thing" presents. I'd be alot
more concerned about a loaded handgun found in a playground
than a knife (albeit not happy about either) -- and in fact, that
just happened. I don't recall the location, but just recently a child
found a handgun in a playground, presumed to have been dropped
by a CHL holder. Now, should the person who dropped that gun be
treated as leniently as someone who may have dropped a knife?
Do you consider the gun to be no more dangerous in that context
then a knife? Sorry, not all "things" are equal, even if many "things"
can be used to do harm.

But every day, and I do mean every day, the police deal with crashes where a driver had no license,
no registration, no insurance and/or was drunk or under the influence
of drugs.

But if there weren't laws identifying such activities as prohibited, why would the police need to be involved.

The police become involved when there is a crash, which is the result of an offense like failing to stop for a red light or failing to yield the right of way.

I think I failed to make my point with the car analogy.

Honestly, I think you are completely missing the points I was trying to make. I agree completely with the key points you are arguing yet they are not the same points that were the focus of my previous postings.

OK. I tried to express myself. It's difficult in this kind of forum. Perhaps someone else will be able to clarify the issues.

I'm hoping that Kevin Craig expresses an opinion.

- Jim

It may simply be that we disagree in principle on the idea of "licenses". I
get the impression that you are opposed even to drivers licenses, that
there should simply be traffic laws, and if someone breaks a traffic
law, they are penalized, but that it is unreasonable for society to seek
to ensure that people that lawfully operate vehicles possess both
essential skills and knowledge to do so safely -- because of the higher
risks to others involved. Or have I misunderstood your position?

[seamusTX]

This actuallly highlights what I see as a benefit to such a license program: it emphasizes the fact that gun posession is inherently no more criminal than driving a car.

That has not been the case in states where firearms ownership is licensed.

In most states that have concealed-carry licenses, newspapers can obtain lists of license holders and publish them. The newspaper editors do so on the presumption that license holders are dangerous. They say so in their editorials.

This has not happened in Texas because the CHL law (wisely) makes it prohibitively expensive and difficult.

I'm sorry, but it seems to me that you are choosing to read only portions of my original post and disregard other portions.

I'm sorry if you feel slighted, but this forum software makes it laborious to reply to each point as I am doing in this message.

I also don't have unlimited time to reply.

I stated in several places that it would take effort and care to ensure that the basis for suspensions is such that it is difficult to abuse while still allowing for valid cases. Again, I agree, with what you are stating here but I don't see a valid objection to what I was proposing. "Let's not do that because it might be done in the wrong way" is not IMO a valid argument for not trying.

My main objection to the linkage of licensing and mental illness is that it will not stop dangerous mentally ill people from causing harm. If someone is that dangerous, they should be confined or closely monitored.

Meanwhile, we would be left with a licensing system that was ineffective and subject to abuse.

I appreciate the essence of that argument; however, some "things" are more hazardous than other "things". It is reasonable for control to be relative to the danger a given "thing" presents. I'd be alot more concerned about a loaded handgun found in a playground than a knife ... Now, should the person who dropped that gun be treated as leniently as someone who may have dropped a knife?

It is already illegal to allow a minor to come into possession of a loaded weapon. No licensing is required for that.

It also strikes me (given my underlying philosophy) that losing an item that cost several hundred dollars and can result in liability in the millions is really stupid. Can we outlaw stupidity effectively?

It may simply be that we disagree in principle on the idea of "licenses". I get the impression that you are opposed even to drivers licenses, ...

I accept driver licenses on several bases:
1. Vehicles are more dangerous than semi-automatic firearms. They kill far more people each year (not even counting car bombs).
2. Driver licensing is an accepted fact after a century or so.
3. The vast majority of Americans drive. They would object to unreasonable restrictions on driving. (Breaking the 55 MPH speed limit was probably the most widespread form of civil disobedience since the end of Prohibition.)

The last point is not true of firearms licensing. Once a system was in place, a hostile government could ratchet up the requirements indefinitely.

For example, what if you had to be able to fire 15 shots in 15 seconds into a 2-inch circle at 15 yards before you could purchase a handgun? How could you ever get to that point if you couldn't own one?

What if classes were held once a year in Lubbock?

... that there should simply be traffic laws, and if someone breaks a traffic law, they are penalized, but that it is unreasonable for society to seek to ensure that people that lawfully operate vehicles possess both essential skills and knowledge to do so safely -- because of the higher risks to others involved. Or have I misunderstood your position?

I think my points 1 and 2 above answer this question.

- Jim

[jimlongley]

A major fault that I see in your licensing proposal is that you are essentially trying to license a right.

I drove for years before I was even old enough to obtain a driver's license, and the vast majority of that driving was perfectly legal, a driver's license is only required to use public highways, which is essentially what we have with our CHLs, a license to carry in public as opposed to no need for a license to carry on your own private property.

A license to own a firearm, even in your own home, takes you to IL with their FOID, where you have to have a license to own a gun, any gun, or ammunition. Administrative rules take the place of legislation, if you move, the city, state, or county can see to it that your FOID is "suspended" which is as good as revoked. No conviction is necessary to remove your FOID, just arrest.

If you drive through one of several cities in IL that prohibit the possession of handguns, like driving through Chicago to get from Homewood to Lake Bluff for an IDPA match, and you get caught with a firearm, you will be arrested and you will lose your FOID.

If you get caught with "prohibited ammunition" you will be arrested and you will lose your FOID.

If you get in a tiff with your spouse and the police show up, you will lose your FOID.

And there are any number of other ways you can lose your FOID, most of which are not written into the law.

If you move out of state, but plan on going back to attend IDPA matches with your old buds IL will revoke your FOID, but will call the revocation something else and you will be in violation of IL law if you take a firearm into the state.

If you lose your FOID, for any reason, you must not possess any firearms after that moment, which means you can't even take them to the gun store, pawn shop, or wait for a gun show to sell them, you can't legally possess them, no grace period. If you lose your FOID, the local police are notified, and have been known to show up at gun owners' homes to make sure they didn't handle them.

No, I've lived where gun owners were licensed and know too many other horror stories, I don't like the idea of licensing a right.

[Geister]

I find it rather silly that there are those wanting to propose a mental patient database after ONE mass incident. In fact:

-- The VT shooter was NOT eligible for a Virginia concealed handgun permit, as he had been treated as a voluntary resident in a mental institution within the past five years.

-- According to the State law of Virginia, he needed a CHL to carry his Glock and Walther, which he could not get for another 4+ years, assuming he had no other disqualifications.

-- Also according to Virginia Tech, he was breaking the rules by having a handgun on his person on campus.

Did ANY of these gun control laws stop him from killing 32 people? Obviously not.

But some of you are suggesting we have a MASSIVE database, filled with PERSONAL information, in order to determine who is "too nutty" to purchase a firearm. By some of you's definition, the VT shooter was not too nutty. He had not been legally regarded as a nutcase nor had he been in a padded room with a straightjacket. So even with a database in place, it would not have done any good. Of course, it wouldn't have done any good anyway since he could have stolen a firearm or used pipe bombs.

But most of this is irrelevant anyway. The fact is, the government should have NO power to say who can purchase a firearm. It's a power they should not have. A government can only be controlled by the People when it FEARS the People, i.e the People have control over firearms and other self-defense tools.

When you give the government such power, you've already lost. There is no stopping the government once it has power. First they'll ban firearm purchases for mental patients, then they'll ban firearms for people who don't meet XYZ requirements, and finally firearms will be totally banned.

Besides, if a mental nutcase wants to kill people, what's stopping him from using other tools besides a firearm? Are you going to make a HUGE mental patient database for purchases of pipe, which can be used for pipebombs? Are you going to make a HUGE mental patient database for machetes and axes, which can be used to kill?

Wouldn't it just be much easier to keep the mental patients INSIDE of their padded rooms or get enough citizens out there with firearms to defend themselves from the mental nutcases bend on killing?

Sure, guns are effective at killing people. But they are still only a tool. When someone tries to promote a gun control law, they forget that a gun is only a tool. They try to blame the gun for the violence inflicted. You can't do that at all.

Of course gun control doesn't work anyway. It didn't stop Cho from killing 32 people. Hell, had he used homemade bombs WITHOUT firearms the death toll would probably be higher. The ONLY thing that could have kept the death toll lower is if someone in the vincinity had a gun and SHOT Cho during his killing spree. In that situation a gun was a tool used to PREVENT a crime.

The REAL problem is not the guns at all, but the fact that not enough people are a part of the "gun culture." If more and more people carried firearms like they do cell phones, we would have a LOT less crime. The mere fact that a population is armed will deter criminals; they don't even need to see the guns. That is the only way we'll get pretty close to utopia.

Passing gun control laws puts the blame on firearms, which causes people to be irrationally scared of them. We need MORE people familiar with firearms, not less.

I'm not even going to get into the privacy issue and abuse with another huge government database. That should be obvious. Hell, the majority of people in government (and government is ONLY made up of people) are total strangers to me. Why should a bunch of total strangers know intimate details about me or anyone else?

[Lucky45]

finally back in TX, here goes.

I find it rather silly that there are those wanting to propose a mental patient database after ONE mass incident.

like I posted earlier, there is a mental health database in TX which is called WEBCARE. Any patient who seeks mental care and is DIAGNOSED as mentally ill or perscribed a drug for mental sickness is automatically enter into the states database for tracking purposes. my daughter works for Harris County Mental Health and Retardation Authority as a mental health clinician. according to law and doctors hypocritical oath, they have to maintain records of this info. she says it does not come up on background checks. also LE have a state form that is filled out on mental case arrest which is automatically entered into states database. it is also reported by medical insurance plan to database when doctor files a claim on your policy during a visit.

so I think the argument some have made about a database is mute because it has been going on for years. where is the abuse?