Shooting at CT Elementary School. WTF AMERICA?!

[P3nT4gR4m]

Fuck that noise. If I lived in America I'd want a nuclear warhead or two. Statistically less people have been killed by nukes than almost any other weapon, including improvised shit like hammers and baseball bats. So there's really no argument for me not having a couple. Just in case. For, like defending my family and property and shit.

ETA: I agree with a ban on multiple yield, tho. Who would possibly need one of those?

[Don Coyote]

Ok, I'd like to show my ignorance and get down to basics.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Ok.  Great.  But my question is, does the absence of specific types of arms mean that it encompasses all arms?  There's already a ban on fully automatic guns (I think), and there are other kinds of weapons that are illegal.  But could the argument be made that if you have access to some kind of gun, then your rights aren't being infringed?

If this is far too stupid to address, please ignore it.

exactly.
I don't see an argument. I think being able to own a handgun to protect my home is just fine. I don't need a high powered assault rifle for that.
But then I'm not afraid of my big bad government coming to get me for no reason.

Where as I would much rather have an assault rifle for home defense due my much greater familiarity with rifles than with handguns.

[Sir Squid Diddimus]

Fuck that noise. If I lived in America I'd want a nuclear warhead or two. Statistically less people have been killed by nukes than almost any other weapon, including improvised shit like hammers and baseball bats. So there's really no argument for me not having a couple. Just in case. For, like defending my family and property and shit.

ETA: I agree with a ban on multiple yield, tho. Who would possibly need one of those?

Americaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Here's my hair-brained idea.  Most states have Prescription Monitoring Programs that, crudely and in a nutshell, tip off physicians when one of their patients might be doctor-shopping and diverting pills.  So, you create a Gun Monitoring Program, where whenever someone purchases a gun, data is entered into a system that physicians can monitor.  But, like the PMP's, they can only monitor THEIR patients, and not just anyone who buys a gun.


So if Dr. Smith sees that John, who has been disgnosed with a mental health condition that COULD pose a threat to others, and he sees that John has just purchased a couple of guns and a bunch of ammo, there can be some kind of intervention.


I inow this will make Conservatives and the ACLU itchy, but if we can do it for drugs there is no reason why we can't do it for weapons.

On top of the HIPAA violation issue, most people who DO have healthcare see their doctor only once a year at most, many mentally ill people whose condition is deteriorating avoid seeing their doctor, and many people who commit violent acts are not diagnosed with any mental illness. 

Like many of the rights violations that are ostensibly designed to "protect" us, it might make people feel better, but would be unlikely to have any measurable effect on reducing gun violence.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Fuck that noise. If I lived in America I'd want a nuclear warhead or two. Statistically less people have been killed by nukes than almost any other weapon, including improvised shit like hammers and baseball bats. So there's really no argument for me not having a couple. Just in case. For, like defending my family and property and shit.

ETA: I agree with a ban on multiple yield, tho. Who would possibly need one of those?

Funny but true: One of the best deterrents to home intrusion is owning an intimidating dog. Pit bulls are banned in many municipalities, but it is still totally legal to own a gun.

I don't feel like I need a gun in the house when I have this:



OK, so that's not exactly intimidating. But man, she COULD be.

[AFK]

Here's my hair-brained idea.  Most states have Prescription Monitoring Programs that, crudely and in a nutshell, tip off physicians when one of their patients might be doctor-shopping and diverting pills.  So, you create a Gun Monitoring Program, where whenever someone purchases a gun, data is entered into a system that physicians can monitor.  But, like the PMP's, they can only monitor THEIR patients, and not just anyone who buys a gun.


So if Dr. Smith sees that John, who has been disgnosed with a mental health condition that COULD pose a threat to others, and he sees that John has just purchased a couple of guns and a bunch of ammo, there can be some kind of intervention.


I inow this will make Conservatives and the ACLU itchy, but if we can do it for drugs there is no reason why we can't do it for weapons.

On top of the HIPAA violation issue, most people who DO have healthcare see their doctor only once a year at most, many mentally ill people whose condition is deteriorating avoid seeing their doctor, and many people who commit violent acts are not diagnosed with any mental illness. 

Like many of the rights violations that are ostensibly designed to "protect" us, it might make people feel better, but would be unlikely to have any measurable effect on reducing gun violence.

There wouldn't be any HIPAA violations whatsoever.  Data is fed into the system by the gun merchants but they can't view the data.  The only person who could view the information of the patient would be the patient's physician.  Or, as is currently allowable with PMPs, law enforcement could view the data with a court order. 

[Junkenstein]

Interesting idea, but would the old flaws regarding drug prescriptions not come in handy?

I would suggest most ne'er-do-wells would be able to bribe a suitable "upstanding" patsy. There remains the issue of the current existing arsenal as well which I would imagine is now pretty much impossible to track down to the level that would make this effective.  Criminals tend to ignore laws and I suspect any law/regulation change, no matter how well publicised would still create a lot of incidental criminals through ignorance.

Given that most mental illness linked to violence tends to be undiagnosed, would some kind of screening every X years help detect/prevent problems? The UK is/was (?) pushing a "Health MOT" basically encouraging everyone to go to their doctor at key milestone ages (30,50,65 for men if I recall correctly). Something similar every 5/10 years would probably be possible. The problem is both scale and that entire towns would be declared mentally subnormal.

Round here for example, I don't even trust anyone holding a spoon.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Here's my hair-brained idea.  Most states have Prescription Monitoring Programs that, crudely and in a nutshell, tip off physicians when one of their patients might be doctor-shopping and diverting pills.  So, you create a Gun Monitoring Program, where whenever someone purchases a gun, data is entered into a system that physicians can monitor.  But, like the PMP's, they can only monitor THEIR patients, and not just anyone who buys a gun.


So if Dr. Smith sees that John, who has been disgnosed with a mental health condition that COULD pose a threat to others, and he sees that John has just purchased a couple of guns and a bunch of ammo, there can be some kind of intervention.


I inow this will make Conservatives and the ACLU itchy, but if we can do it for drugs there is no reason why we can't do it for weapons.

On top of the HIPAA violation issue, most people who DO have healthcare see their doctor only once a year at most, many mentally ill people whose condition is deteriorating avoid seeing their doctor, and many people who commit violent acts are not diagnosed with any mental illness. 

Like many of the rights violations that are ostensibly designed to "protect" us, it might make people feel better, but would be unlikely to have any measurable effect on reducing gun violence.

There wouldn't be any HIPAA violations whatsoever.  Data is fed into the system by the gun merchants but they can't view the data.  The only person who could view the information of the patient would be the patient's physician.  Or, as is currently allowable with PMPs, law enforcement could view the data with a court order.

The HIPAA violation is inherent in the law you're proposing, wherein the doctor stages an intervention if a patient he or she considers a risk purchases a gun.

Or maybe you're proposing that the doctor performs the intervention on their own? Perhaps makes a housecall to the patient? I'm not anticipating much AMA support for such a scheme, if that's the case...

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

"So, Jim, I can't help but notice that you haven't seen me in a while and seem to have gone off your meds, and also that you've been buying guns, so I thought I would just drop by and have a little chat..."

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

Is it just me or is the whole mental health care act just a bit of bullshit?

Yes, I do think it is important. However placing that above the actual discussion (Guns) is reframing the debate to the ideas that only the mentally unbalanced commit violent crimes.


My wildly impractiacal solution ignoring the arms in circulation is that every new owner should have a required level of training and pass a william tell style test. Fail the test, go to jail. Can't find anyone to volunteer to hold the apple, well shit you're not passing.

In my own weird view, yes, only the mental imbalanced commit violent crime that is why things like Boot Camp are necessary to enable soldiers to commit murder. First break them down mentally then rebuild them in any horrific way you see fit. [This is also what happens to inner city youth] The history of psychology is plagued by this notion of rebuilding or breaking the psyche look into it and see that the first cases of multiple personalities were done intentionally by psychologists even Jung mentions it.

Violence for self-preservation such as hunting or protecting ones kin is not the same as all violent crime yet guns get the blame when its the people behind them that pull the triggers.

The mental health care system in America was systemically disabled and now it is entirely a chemically driven profit business. I live in CO and the guy that shot up the movie theater was banned from his campus because his shrink called in a warning. That same shrink by law should have reported him to the authorities for a 72 hour hold and is now being sued. Its a question of how many people ignore the RED FLAGS over and over till this shit happens.

So the mental health aspect is not bullshit and just try disarming America it can not be done. This country is way to big and from coast to coast it is armed, just saying...

bullshit. the mentally ill are more likely to be victims of crime than perps. The "only crazy folks do this shit" stigmatizes the majority of peaceful or only a harm to themselves crazies. There are extreme cases, but they are by and large very very rare.

It depends quite a bit on the mental illness, Pixie. The vast majority of mental illnesses are harmless to everyone but the sufferer, but a few are dangerous. A one-size-fits-all answer like "the mentally ill are more likely to be victims of crime than perpetrators" isn't really an answer that works.

It also depends on what you define as mental illness. I could argue that large swathes of society suffer from stress-induced psychosis, and that can make a sufferer very dangerous indeed.

I've had stress induced psychosis, and have friends and relatives with psychotic conditions, from schizo affective disorder to full blown schizophrenia. By and large psychotics are most likely to harm themselves. there are notable cases, of paranoid psychotics harming others, however you don't ever hear about the psychotics that don't kill anyone, so the media representation is heavily skewed. I'd guess that originally aggressive folks who then get a psychotic episode are the ones you see going to the harm others end of the scale.

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

http://www.mentalhealthcare.org.uk/living_with_psychosis#Violent_behaviour

it's not UNKNOWN, sure, but its in the minority.

Sorry, shit like this winds me the fuck up because the majority of people who have psychosis are treated like violent people, when in fact it's not actually the case.

The stigma around psychosis and assumptions of violence is why I am very guarded about who I tell about that particular phase in my life.

[AFK]

Here's my hair-brained idea.  Most states have Prescription Monitoring Programs that, crudely and in a nutshell, tip off physicians when one of their patients might be doctor-shopping and diverting pills.  So, you create a Gun Monitoring Program, where whenever someone purchases a gun, data is entered into a system that physicians can monitor.  But, like the PMP's, they can only monitor THEIR patients, and not just anyone who buys a gun.


So if Dr. Smith sees that John, who has been disgnosed with a mental health condition that COULD pose a threat to others, and he sees that John has just purchased a couple of guns and a bunch of ammo, there can be some kind of intervention.


I inow this will make Conservatives and the ACLU itchy, but if we can do it for drugs there is no reason why we can't do it for weapons.

On top of the HIPAA violation issue, most people who DO have healthcare see their doctor only once a year at most, many mentally ill people whose condition is deteriorating avoid seeing their doctor, and many people who commit violent acts are not diagnosed with any mental illness. 

Like many of the rights violations that are ostensibly designed to "protect" us, it might make people feel better, but would be unlikely to have any measurable effect on reducing gun violence.

There wouldn't be any HIPAA violations whatsoever.  Data is fed into the system by the gun merchants but they can't view the data.  The only person who could view the information of the patient would be the patient's physician.  Or, as is currently allowable with PMPs, law enforcement could view the data with a court order.

The HIPAA violation is inherent in the law you're proposing, wherein the doctor stages an intervention if a patient he or she considers a risk purchases a gun.

Or maybe you're proposing that the doctor performs the intervention on their own? Perhaps makes a housecall to the patient? I'm not anticipating much AMA support for such a scheme, if that's the case...

It would be the same model as the PMP's which are universally accepted across the country, quite legal, and enjoy the overwhelming support of the medical community.  Because, of course, a sudden purchase of a gun an ammunition could be any number of things, including the potential for suicide.  So it is in the best interest of the physician, in terms of the welfare of their patient, to have that information to have the opportunity to further assess the patient and initiate the appropriate care.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Is it just me or is the whole mental health care act just a bit of bullshit?

Yes, I do think it is important. However placing that above the actual discussion (Guns) is reframing the debate to the ideas that only the mentally unbalanced commit violent crimes.


My wildly impractiacal solution ignoring the arms in circulation is that every new owner should have a required level of training and pass a william tell style test. Fail the test, go to jail. Can't find anyone to volunteer to hold the apple, well shit you're not passing.

In my own weird view, yes, only the mental imbalanced commit violent crime that is why things like Boot Camp are necessary to enable soldiers to commit murder. First break them down mentally then rebuild them in any horrific way you see fit. [This is also what happens to inner city youth] The history of psychology is plagued by this notion of rebuilding or breaking the psyche look into it and see that the first cases of multiple personalities were done intentionally by psychologists even Jung mentions it.

Violence for self-preservation such as hunting or protecting ones kin is not the same as all violent crime yet guns get the blame when its the people behind them that pull the triggers.

The mental health care system in America was systemically disabled and now it is entirely a chemically driven profit business. I live in CO and the guy that shot up the movie theater was banned from his campus because his shrink called in a warning. That same shrink by law should have reported him to the authorities for a 72 hour hold and is now being sued. Its a question of how many people ignore the RED FLAGS over and over till this shit happens.

So the mental health aspect is not bullshit and just try disarming America it can not be done. This country is way to big and from coast to coast it is armed, just saying...

bullshit. the mentally ill are more likely to be victims of crime than perps. The "only crazy folks do this shit" stigmatizes the majority of peaceful or only a harm to themselves crazies. There are extreme cases, but they are by and large very very rare.

It depends quite a bit on the mental illness, Pixie. The vast majority of mental illnesses are harmless to everyone but the sufferer, but a few are dangerous. A one-size-fits-all answer like "the mentally ill are more likely to be victims of crime than perpetrators" isn't really an answer that works.

It also depends on what you define as mental illness. I could argue that large swathes of society suffer from stress-induced psychosis, and that can make a sufferer very dangerous indeed.

I've had stress induced psychosis, and have friends and relatives with psychotic conditions, from schizo affective disorder to full blown schizophrenia. By and large psychotics are most likely to harm themselves. there are notable cases, of paranoid psychotics harming others, however you don't ever hear about the psychotics that don't kill anyone, so the media representation is heavily skewed. I'd guess that originally aggressive folks who then get a psychotic episode are the ones you see going to the harm others end of the scale.

Right... mental illness doesn't automatically make people a danger to others, it just also doesn't automatically make them NOT a danger to others, either.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Here's my hair-brained idea.  Most states have Prescription Monitoring Programs that, crudely and in a nutshell, tip off physicians when one of their patients might be doctor-shopping and diverting pills.  So, you create a Gun Monitoring Program, where whenever someone purchases a gun, data is entered into a system that physicians can monitor.  But, like the PMP's, they can only monitor THEIR patients, and not just anyone who buys a gun.


So if Dr. Smith sees that John, who has been disgnosed with a mental health condition that COULD pose a threat to others, and he sees that John has just purchased a couple of guns and a bunch of ammo, there can be some kind of intervention.


I inow this will make Conservatives and the ACLU itchy, but if we can do it for drugs there is no reason why we can't do it for weapons.

On top of the HIPAA violation issue, most people who DO have healthcare see their doctor only once a year at most, many mentally ill people whose condition is deteriorating avoid seeing their doctor, and many people who commit violent acts are not diagnosed with any mental illness. 

Like many of the rights violations that are ostensibly designed to "protect" us, it might make people feel better, but would be unlikely to have any measurable effect on reducing gun violence.

There wouldn't be any HIPAA violations whatsoever.  Data is fed into the system by the gun merchants but they can't view the data.  The only person who could view the information of the patient would be the patient's physician.  Or, as is currently allowable with PMPs, law enforcement could view the data with a court order.

So the gun merchant can't see the rejection of the application?  What?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Why not just medicalize guns and ammo, so that you have to have a prescription to buy them? Combination gun stores and pharmacies.