Shooting at CT Elementary School. WTF AMERICA?!

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Of course, there's also the problem of GPs not being qualified to diagnose mental illnesses, and the issue of what conditions or behavior would be considered grounds for flagging a purchase.

[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.

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

Well, if a state is set up to reject applications based upon mental health status then that would supercede this system, and would be a separate system.  One is to clear someone to purchase a gun the other is to alert a physician that a patient with a mental health condition has purchased a weapon.  But, much like with the PMPs, it wouldn't be the case that every mental health patient who purchases a gun would automatically be red flagged.  You'd have to create threshholds, like they do with PMPs, that would trigger depending on the diagnosis and what was purchased.  It certainly would take some time to properly design and get online, but it would be another tool and another opportunity to perhaps stave off an individual crisis.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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

Throw cigs and porn in, and you've got a winner.

[AFK]

Of course, there's also the problem of GPs not being qualified to diagnose mental illnesses, and the issue of what conditions or behavior would be considered grounds for flagging a purchase.

That's not a problem at all.  For one, both the GP and the specialist would have access to the information for the particular patient, which means both would get the threshhold reports.  Hopefully, the two would be in communication and consult each other when a report was generated and decide if any further action is needed.

[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.

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.

same goes for sane people.

[AFK]

You can't ever eliminate the threat that any kind of person would pose.  And I think we need to look at systems that are more about intervention and helping a person who may be in trouble, rather than a system that automatically stigmatizes those who are affected by behavioral health issues.  Which is what the system I propose is, a system that allows opportunities for conversation, not accusation.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

You can't ever eliminate the threat that any kind of person would pose.  And I think we need to look at systems that are more about intervention and helping a person who may be in trouble, rather than a system that automatically stigmatizes those who are affected by behavioral health issues.  Which is what the system I propose is, a system that allows opportunities for conversation, not accusation.

Which would be immediately abused.

[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.

same goes for sane people.

Yep.

[AFK]

How?  PMPs aren't abused.  And if you were to abuse it, at least here in Maine, there are very serious consequences which deter abuse.  You'd set up a system for guns the same way. 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Of course, there's also the problem of GPs not being qualified to diagnose mental illnesses, and the issue of what conditions or behavior would be considered grounds for flagging a purchase.

That's not a problem at all.  For one, both the GP and the specialist would have access to the information for the particular patient, which means both would get the threshhold reports.  Hopefully, the two would be in communication and consult each other when a report was generated and decide if any further action is needed.

I just consulted a doctor and her reaction was "BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAA WTF"

Not sure you're going to get a lot of support for this one.

[AFK]

Meh, doesn't surprise me.  No one seems to have any real interest in ACTUALLY solving our gun violence issues.  Lot's of people want to talk and wring their hands, but no real solutions are coming from anyone, on either side of the aisle.  So, we'll just keep on keeping on, and we'll have another Columbine, another Newton, another Aurora...but it's what The People want, right?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I think it was more that it's a preposterous proposal with a million gaping holes in it, but you can imagine that you're Using Your Powers For Good if that's what rings your jingle.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Meh, doesn't surprise me.  No one seems to have any real interest in ACTUALLY solving our gun violence issues.

Sounds more like no one seems to agree with your solution.

[AFK]

I think it was more that it's a preposterous proposal with a million gaping holes in it, but you can imagine that you're Using Your Powers For Good if that's what rings your jingle.

What holes? 

[AFK]

Meh, doesn't surprise me.  No one seems to have any real interest in ACTUALLY solving our gun violence issues.

Sounds more like no one seems to agree with your solution.

Sure, but that aside, we are also getting the usual window-dressing bullshit from the Democrats.  Obama's proposals have no teeth and will do jack shit.  They're too scared of the bat-shit-crazy NRA to actually propose something that might actually have an impact.  People will forget about Newton, like they forgot about Columbine.    Maybe if those little kids had been shot by a smudgy guy from Afghanistan we'd actually be doing something about it.