Guns and Mental Illness

[Katy]

As to the ETA, no, I'm not a creep.  Just explaining that the assertion there are is no value to guns so no one should fear a registry is without merit.  If someone wants a mansion I'm not judging them.  But stating someone without a mansion has nothing of value to steal IS judging them falsely.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

No, no hordes.  Just one meth head who wants a few grand worth of guns to trade for drugs at a time.  And no, I didn't hear that on Glenn Beck. My father was a chief of police, and I heard plenty of stories of smart addicts figuring out who had the most to steal.

 

And shockingly they did so without a national database.

 

Pretty sure meth heads hitting rural homes for their next score aren't the ones we need to worry about as far as hackers go.

[Katy]

re: potential risks of a weapon registry/database:

 

In my area, I agree that gun ownership is not correlated (either way) with income or wealth -- interest in hunting and sport shooting, for instance, which people talk about candidly, spans socioeconomic and cultural groups; I assume private handgun ownership does as well.

 

I'm struggling to understand what you're saying about becoming a target, though.  Other posters have argued that potential thieves are deterred if they think the homeowner is likely to have a gun.  Are you arguing that thieves are more likely to target a homeowner if they think there are guns in the house?

 

(I'm not pushing back on you Katy -- just trying to understand where you're coming from.)

 

 

 

In any event, a gun registry would not be designed to be openly accessible to thieves, any more than the databases of our income tax returns currently are openly accessible to thieves, right?  

 

If someone knows you have valuables that they want to steal, typically they just ring a doorbell in the middle of a workday to determine if someone is home. If no one answers, they break in.  Even if you carry a gun with you everywhere (and few do unless they are cops), you are unlikely to carry your entire collection with you everywhere.

 

Guns can protect you if you are in a home and someone is trying to break in, but they are not a deterrent if no one is home.

 

Most government information is public information.  What good would it do to have a gun registry that is classified?  If doctors and therapists and the police couldn't access it, how would it help?  How would you allow healthcare staff and police access but deny it to the public in any sort of secure way? 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

If someone knows you have valuables that they want to steal, typically they just ring a doorbell in the middle of a workday to determine if someone is home. If no one answers, they break in.  Even if you carry a gun with you everywhere (and few do unless they are cops), you are unlikely to carry your entire collection with you everywhere.

 

Guns can protect you if you are in a home and someone is trying to break in, but they are not a deterrent if no one is home.

 

Most government information is public information.  What good would it do to have a gun registry that is classified?  If doctors and therapists and the police couldn't access it, how would it help?  How would you allow healthcare staff and police access but deny it to the public in any sort of secure way? 

 

You can say most because of the sheer volume of information available, but certain PIV data is heavily protected by law.

[Murphy101]

Nm.

 

Tmi

 

Nec*

 

 

 

Not enough coffee :)

[ChocolateReignRemix]

My sisters fil died and she made the error of mentioning that they inherited his gun collection while talking to her friend in line at the grocery store to buy her prescriptions.

 

Her home was broken into and the guns stolen within a week. And she couldn't figure how they even knew she had them. She also had most of her prescriptions stolen. (She has multiple medical problems rendering her just about a walking pharmacy.)

 

Eventually the police were able to track the guns down and come to find out one of the three people that masked themselves and broke into her home had been an employee of the store and probably over heard her talking.

 

She was pistol whipped in the face, terrified, and is very low income and had to figure out emergency measures for paying for medications.

 

So yes. Bad people can and will use databases. That's kind of the point of hacking. They are hacking to do damage bc they know there is information on databases that they can use for criminal means.

 

No, it wasn't a horde. It rarely is. It was not a horde that went crazy at the school either.

 

One person can inflict plenty of criminal activity harm.

 

That is rather the point of this thread, so if all you want to worry about is hordes, then there's no reason to have this discussion. Because we still do not have hordes of gunmen roaming the streets either. But we still think preventing one person from committing multiple crimes is worth consideration. Validly IMO.

 

I like how you gave an example of someone telling personal information in public and then used that to suggest the databases are unsafe.

 

Pharmacies have prescription drug information in their databases.  Prescription drugs are highly sought after by thieves, yet I am unaware of the local meth hounds hacking Rite Aid to locate a score.  Instead they look for wheelchair ramps and homes occupied by the elderly.

 

In a rural community it isn't difficult to figure out who may own a gun.

 

[Katy]

You can say most because of the sheer volume of information available, but certain PIV data is heavily protected by law.

 

PIV?  Do you mean PPI?    So what?  Life and private property are both heavily protected by law as well. It's not the law abiding that we are concerned with.

[Katy]

I like how you gave an example of someone telling personal information in public and then used that to suggest the databases are unsafe.

 

Pharmacies have prescription drug information in their databases.  Prescription drugs are highly sought after by thieves, yet I am unaware of the local meth hounds hacking Rite Aid to locate a score.  Instead they look for wheelchair ramps and homes occupied by the elderly.

 

In a rural community it isn't difficult to figure out who may own a gun.

 

 

If it isn't too hard to figure out who has them then there is no need for a big expensive database.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

PIV?  Do you mean PPI?    So what?  Life and private property are both heavily protected by law as well. It's not the law abiding that we are concerned with.

 

DH's agency uses PIV. 

 

The so what matters as you claimed most government information is public.  The information you are most concerned about is not. 

[Murphy101]

Well crappers. I didn't delete fast enough.

 

Oh well.

 

Yes I gave an example of how someone used trivial information to commit a crime.

 

If that same information had been available on a database, would it have changed that my sister was robbed or just changed who did it and how they did it?

 

These people didn't even know how many guns or what kind of guns.

 

I have no idea why whether someone lives rurally or not has anything to do with this.

 

My sister does not live rurally, not that it matters.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

If it isn't too hard to figure out who has them then there is no need for a big expensive database.

 

Logic fail.  Seriously.

 

Meth head scoping homes for a score /= database needed by law enforcement.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Well crappers. I didn't delete fast enough.

 

Oh well.

 

Yes I gave an example of how someone used trivial information to commit a crime.

 

If that same information had been available on a database, would it have changed that my sister was robbed or just changed who did it and how they did it?

 

These people didn't even know how many guns or what kind of guns.

 

I have no idea why whether someone lives rurally or not has anything to do with this.

 

My sister does not live rurally, not that it matters.

 

And that is the point.  Local thieves don't have the resources to hack national databases and don't need to do so.  They have easier ways to locate their marks, including (and most frequently) just breaking into random homes and getting lucky.

[Katy]

Logic fail.  Seriously.

 

Meth head scoping homes for a score /= database needed by law enforcement.

 

I was being flippant.  I apologize.

 

I object to the concept that no one who would have access to the database would ever abuse it.  Many addicts start out as professionals, even law enforcement professionals and health care professionals. An injury or minor surgery can lead to a dependence on pain medicine, which can lead to a meth addiction. This happens to police officers and doctors too, unfortunately.  This is why larger police departments have internal affairs, and why if hospital employees are injured at work, even if by being attacked by a patient, the worker is routinely subjected to a drug screening.

 

They can also be in situations where someone with legal access could be blackmailed for the list, rather than hacked.  Or they could be offered a bribe.  The idea that criminals would respect privacy laws just because it's illegal?  Criminals are criminals.

[Pam in CT]

Martha, that is a horrendous story, and I am so sorry it happened to your sister.  It absolutely illustrates the violence in our society and the real fear that some of our citizens live with every day.  Both of which are serious issues that we have to find a way grapple with and address.

 

 

It does not illustrate the perils of government databases, though, or the risks of hacking.  A ill-intentioned person who worked at a pharmacy (mis)used his employer's private database, along with information he overheard spoken aloud.  Neither government databases nor hacking was involved.

 

 

Katy, you are right -- a lot of government information is public, and rightly so (house sales, so purchasers and buyers have a sense of what the market is; sex offender lists, so people can take appropriate precautions, expenditures of public agencies so people can see where tax funds go, etc).  But many other types of information in government records is not public (our tax records, for example; or what kind of car we drive; or what financial aid our kid got for college).  It's a mix.

 

I believe the idea of mental health registries and (separate) gun registries is that mental health professionals would refer information in to the health registry (as happens now for public health, for problems such as TB or measles or recently ebola); and LEO would have the ability to cross-check against the weapons registry (similar to what happens now in some states, where LEOs can cross check motor vehicle records against criminal charges).  

 

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I was being flippant.  I apologize.

 

I object to the concept that no one who would have access to the database would ever abuse it.  Many addicts start out as professionals, even law enforcement professionals and health care professionals. An injury or minor surgery can lead to a dependence on pain medicine, which can lead to a meth addiction. This happens to police officers and doctors too, unfortunately.  This is why larger police departments have internal affairs, and why if hospital employees are injured at work, even if by being attacked by a patient, the worker is routinely subjected to a drug screening.

 

They can also be in situations where someone with legal access could be blackmailed for the list, rather than hacked.  Or they could be offered a bribe.  The idea that criminals would respect privacy laws just because it's illegal?  Criminals are criminals.

 

And again, we already have databases with even more valuable personal information, yet this mass blackmailing or selling of data doesn't seem to be a serious issue.  Trying to claim that gun ownership is a special snowflake secret that must be kept out of public records at all costs is a bit strange.

 

BTW, there are already databases with the information of those who legally own automatic weapons, which requires special licensing and fingerprinting.  Due to the scarcity of those weapons, their value is significantly greater than what most gun owners will ever have.

 

Yet strangely enough we don't have an issue with their information getting out in the public for the thieves to strike.

[Katy]

And again, we already have databases with even more valuable personal information, yet this mass blackmailing or selling of data doesn't seem to be a serious issue.  Trying to claim that gun ownership is a special snowflake secret that must be kept out of public records at all costs is a bit strange.

 

BTW, there are already databases with the information of those who legally own automatic weapons, which requires special licensing and fingerprinting.  Due to the scarcity of those weapons, their value is significantly greater than what most gun owners will ever have.

 

Yet strangely enough we don't have an issue with their information getting out in the public for the thieves to strike.

 

If it is an issue we wouldn't know.  It would be reported as a break in with a few valuables and guns stolen.  No one wants to advertise that as soon as the insurance company cuts a check they're going to have those weapons back again. Also, problems of scale.

 

And a registry would accomplish nothing without significantly changing health privacy laws.

[Murphy101]

And that is the point. Local thieves don't have the resources to hack national databases and don't need to do so. They have easier ways to locate their marks, including (and most frequently) just breaking into random homes and getting lucky.

Wait. What? Where do you think hackers come from? Mars? They have to be local to somewhere. And they hack exactly because it is easier and less dangerous than random luck strikes into places.

 

Also. Addicts are not all brain addled incompetents. Functioning addicts are the more common type. We all probably work with or otherwise come into contact with addicts every day and don't even know it.

 

And lastly, hackers sell their stolen goods to people who use it. That's what they do. Obviously the people buying have no good intentions or there wouldn't be a black market for it.

 

Medical data theft is actually a more profitable crime than credit data theft.

[goldberry]

I was reading a book last night about how radically law enforcement changed when the FBI created national databases to track violent crime.  We now have national fingerprint and DNA databases available to law enforcement, so they are not limited to only the information they have locally.  It has made a HUGE difference in the ability of law enforcement to track criminals.  I'm sure there are plenty of people who thought (and think) that is a violation of privacy. After all, just because someone committed a crime once, did they give up all their privacy rights?  But look at the difference it made in keeping the community safer.

 

Owning a gun does not equal committing a crime.  BUT, the possibility of a gun being used in a crime and the *consequences* of that possibility in my opinion argue in favor of guns being registered in a way accessible to law enforcement and mental health professionals. Owning a gun is a responsibility.  If your gun is stolen or given away, or sold, part of your responsibility as a gun owner should be to report that information so that the future gun owner can be held responsible for actions related to that gun.  A gun is a deadly weapon.  I can't even get freaking chemicals delivered for a science experiment without my information being tracked.  And yet, guns are much more likely to be used for a crime than my chemicals!  It is the only dangerous item right now that is somehow immune to any kind of rational tracking or followup.  It makes no sense.

 

Regarding possible privacy violations, of course that should be addressed.  But will anyone ever have a guarantee of *any* information (health, insurance, anything) being *guaranteed* not to be hacked or violated?  No.  There are no guarantees.  But that has never prohibited the collection of data before (health data, tax data, all sorts of things we would not want violated).

 

 

[Katy]

I seriously doubt a meth head has the means to hack into a national database.

ETA- I didn't call you a creep. I called your statements judgemental in regards to what rural people, farmers, and mansion dwellers value.

 

So my assertion that not every person with money or expensive things chooses expensive housing because in some areas of the country local culture discourages it which was in response to an earlier post that a registry does not make people a target was because people can just go rob nice homes...  my opinion is creepy, but I am not. 

 

I totally see the distinction.  :huh:

[SKL]

Seems like out of the long list of things people want reformed, the one that might make sense AND require government interference would be the link where legally owned guns get transferred to people who aren't legally supposed to have them.  I suggest we apply a rifle approach rather than a shotgun approach to the problem.  (Pun intended.)

 

Here's a question though.  Let's say you're in an inner city location where the gang members generally have access to guns.  You start cracking down and take the guns away from half of them.  What happens next?  (And don't accuse me of "thinking" anything "should" or "shouldn't" happen.  I'm asking an honest open-ended question.  Are we ready to deal with all the issues that a gun round-up will create?)

[Bluegoat]

I agree that gangs need to be addressed.

 

You do not live in a country being decimated in any way, shape, or form.  Despite the terrifying media coverage and hype over mass shootings, gun violence has been lowering every year.

 

My point was that if you absolutely want to end mass shootings, the statistically best way to do so is to end gun free zones that aren't being guarded by guns. Why?  Because apparently since 1952 all but two mass shootings have taken place in "gun free" zones.  Gun free zones are the most dangerous place you can go in the United States if there isn't a metal detector and armed guards protecting it. Does it seem like overkill?  Yes, possibly.  Would it stop those who want to go down in a stream of notoriety and bullets?  Yes!  Would it be simpler to just avoid gun free zones that aren't patrolled?  Well it is for my family, but then we have options many families don't.

 

Ending the notoriety by refusing to put the names and photos of these men on TV and instead referring to them only as terrorists would help.  Legally journalism couldn't be restricted, but consumers could certainly start a social media campaign to limit the names to online articles you must opt-in to find out the identity of the perpetrators. 

 

 

 

There is a huge difference.  Yes, you must register to vote, but your vote is private, so if you vote for someone controversial, it is not known.

 

Yes, you must be licensed to drive, but it is not necessary to drive. Many people who live in cities don't have a need to. Driving is neither controversial or particularly valuable, though if you die in a car crash it is certainly helpful to police to know who you are and how to notify your family.

 

Private databases and data mining can be avoided.  You can opt out of them.  You can pay for things with cash or with anonymous Visa gift cards. You can even have cell phones that are prepaid and are not connected to your name.

 

Owning a gun is both controversial and expensive.  Having a registry of every gun would not only be difficult and expensive to maintain, it would open up gun owners as targets for thieves just the same as a database of every valuable thing you have in your home would.  What?  You don't think having a list of your jewelry, silver dinnerware, and savings bonds are in the interest of national security?  While I agree with you, I could make an argument that it is in the interest of national security to know what resources are in this country so that they may be seized in the event of another great depression. It has been done here before.

 

Also, it would accomplish nothing except making it easier to enforce a gun confiscation plan.  You can bet illegal guns are not going on that registry.  It would not make you safer in any way because it would not be addressing any issues that actually lead someone to be likely to shoot strangers.

 

I wasn't thinking of gangs at all.  I was thinking - armed guards in schools make sense if you are living in a war-zone. Say, Sudan. In most places in the US, they are not necessary and are just an example of the problem, which is an attitude of feeling that people are out to get you.  That is the basis of the violence problem, distrust and a fractured society.  So - people think they are under attack and think they need a loaded gun at their bedside and an armed guard at the school, despite the fact that the numbers don't support those things. 

 

Gun registries are expensive, and may or may not be useful depending on what their purpose is.  In many cases, governments may only keep a registry of particular classes of gun, say, automatic weapons or handguns, rather than the ones more often used for work.  I will point out that registries like this, or of licensed gun owners, are quite common elsewhere and are not targeted for criminal purposes. there are much easier ways to steal guns, especially in a place like the US where they are so common.  Burglary by people who know what they are looking for and are doing is pretty efficient.

 

The main purpose of gun registries is to keep track of more desirable and dangerous weapons that would be stolen for particularly serious crimes.  The main point of registering, or really licensing, people is to make sure there are no contraindications to them owning a gun, to make sure they have passed some sort of use or safety test, and to make ownership something that has to be undertaken with some kind of deliberation. 

 

The paranoia around this issue is really very concerning in and of itself.  I don't have a problem with guns, but I recognize they are dangerous tools and there is a public interest in treating them carefully.  I have to get a permit to put pesticide on my lawn for similar reasons, I don't see any reason to think that guns should be treated less seriously.

 

[TechWife]

 

I believe the idea of mental health registries and (separate) gun registries is that mental health professionals would refer information in to the health registry (as happens now for public health, for problems such as TB or measles or recently ebola); and LEO would have the ability to cross-check against the weapons registry (similar to what happens now in some states, where LEOs can cross check motor vehicle records against criminal charges).  

 

I think this is a horrible idea. LEO's should never have access to someone's health records. The opportunity for discrimination would be astounding. Instead, physicians, who are much more qualified than LEO's, would determine if guns should be removed from the home or if that person should not be allowed to buy weapons.  The physician would then notify the authorities that the individual person should not have access to weapons. I also think that the patients should have a route to appeal the determination of their physicians. This is much more complicated than it sounds. It should not be easy to do this - it should be done with a lot of careful consideration. 

[TechWife]

 

And a registry would accomplish nothing without significantly changing health privacy laws.

 

I absolutely disagree. 

 

Medical data theft is actually a more profitable crime than credit data theft.

 

I've never heard this assertion before. Do you have any info on this? 

 

 

Regarding possible privacy violations, of course that should be addressed.  But will anyone ever have a guarantee of *any* information (health, insurance, anything) being *guaranteed* not to be hacked or violated?  No.  There are no guarantees.  But that has never prohibited the collection of data before (health data, tax data, all sorts of things we would not want violated).

 

Exactly. 

[TechWife]

Here's a question though.  Let's say you're in an inner city location where the gang members generally have access to guns.  You start cracking down and take the guns away from half of them.  What happens next?  (And don't accuse me of "thinking" anything "should" or "shouldn't" happen.  I'm asking an honest open-ended question.  Are we ready to deal with all the issues that a gun round-up will create?)

 

I feel a bit lost. Can you link this to the rest of the conversation, please? No one has proposed a gun round-up, so I'm not even sure where you are thinking to go with this.

 

Generally, it would be a good thing for gang members to not have guns. I'm not sure what kind of fall out would be created by this specific situation because for it to happen, a lot of things would need to be in play such as search warrants, which would mean there would be cause to believe that either the gun was illegally obtained or used to commit a crime, which would mean they were in the possession of criminals.  Do you have a problem with taking guns away from criminals? Do you think criminals should have open access to firearms? 

[Pam in CT]

I think this is a horrible idea. LEO's should never have access to someone's health records. The opportunity for discrimination would be astounding. Instead, physicians, who are much more qualified than LEO's, would determine if guns should be removed from the home or if that person should not be allowed to buy weapons.  The physician would then notify the authorities that the individual person should not have access to weapons. I also think that the patients should have a route to appeal the determination of their physicians. This is much more complicated than it sounds. It should not be easy to do this - it should be done with a lot of careful consideration. 

 

I may not be following you... wouldn't what you're advocating here amount to a (hypothetical) registry of individuals deemed "not mentally healthy enough to handle guns" as determined by mental health providers, against which LEOs would cross check if they were otherwise investigating a person?   How else would the information work?  Who would a concerned physician contact?  (I certainly agree that there's no reason LEO would need, or should have, access to any other medical information beyond the weapons access question.)

 

(I'm think as analogy of what we already have in some states, where once an LEO pulls someone over for speeding, they can cross-check to see if there's a warrant out for them for felony or probation offenses.)

 

Agree about right to appeal, and complicated.

 

 

ETA "deemed," not "demmed."  Irony abounds.

[TechWife]

 

I believe the idea of mental health registries and (separate) gun registries is that mental health professionals would refer information in to the health registry (as happens now for public health, for problems such as TB or measles or recently ebola); and LEO would have the ability to cross-check against the weapons registry (similar to what happens now in some states, where LEOs can cross check motor vehicle records against criminal charges).  

 

 

I may not be following you... wouldn't what you're advocating here amount to a (hypothetical) registry of individuals deemed "not mentally healthy enough to handle guns" as determined by mental health providers, against which LEOs would cross check if they were otherwise investigating a person?   How else would the information work?  Who would a concerned physician contact?  (I certainly agree that there's no reason LEO would need, or should have, access to any other medical information beyond the weapons access question.)

 

(I'm think as analogy of what we already have in some states, where once an LEO pulls someone over for speeding, they can cross-check to see if there's a warrant out for them for felony or probation offenses.)

 

Agree about right to appeal, and complicated.

 

 

ETA "deemed," not "demmed."  Irony abounds.

 

I read the first post I am quoting above as advocating a mental health registry of all mental health patients and LEO's would then look at that registry and decide who shouldn't have a gun. Your second post explains more and flows more with my idea, I think. 

 

ETA: There's a big difference between LEO's having access to someone's medical records and LEO's having access to a "no buy" list, or whatever if would be called. 

[Pam in CT]

I read the first post I am quoting above as advocating a mental health registry of all mental health patients and LEO's would then look at that registry and decide who shouldn't have a gun. Your second post explains more and flows more with my idea, I think. 

 

ETA: There's a big difference between LEO's having access to someone's medical records and LEO's having access to a "no buy" list, or whatever if would be called. 

 

Gotcha.  Yes, the medically determined "weapons access" or "no buy" or whatever is the only information that would be relevant for LEOs.  

 

(Kind of like the no-release no-travel red flags that schools and INS have in certain custody/protective order situations -- no one needs the full details, just the bottom line.)

[poppy]

Very relevant: how recent mass shooters got their guns.

[luuknam]

Yes, if someone is hell bent.  But there is scientific evidence that many suicides in fact are impulsive acts that might not happen if easy availability of a means (read: gun) was not there.  Making guns less available to the population at large would reduce this risk.  

 

But if most suicides are impulsive acts, then did the people committing them have mental disorders serious enough to keep guns out of their hands to begin with? Sure, not having as many guns in society might make a difference, but if those suicides were impulsive, then I don't think you can foresee all impulsive acts. ADHD is a mental health disorder that involves impulsiveness, and if someone with ADHD became depressed, that could be bad (I'd imagine), but does that mean that people with and ADHD diagnosis shouldn't have guns? Or only once they get diagnosed with depression? Maybe they'll shoot themselves rather than go see the doctor.

 

I can tell you that someone close to me recently chose to forego mental health care for fear that the treatment /sessions would come back and haunt her in case she ever applied for a job that required an in-depth background/security check.  How much good is some fear like that doing for a person's mental health? 

 

This. Completely agree. I've had a brush with CPS because of what my psych said to them (which wasn't even what I said to the psych - she twisted things to the point that CPS said "okay, the psych's story was obviously wrong" based on the layout of my house), so I'm very careful of ever saying much to a mental health provider again. And I'm not even paranoid... paranoia isn't uncommon among people with serious mental illnesses, I think.

 

I feel that you should have to get a license for gun ownership, requiring classes, tests, etc., and that there should always be extensive background checks, including mental health.

 

But how much of a mental health disorder would you need to have in order to lose the right to buy a gun?

 

Also, anyone who read about the Ashley Madison thing knows that hackers sometimes just hack to put the data on the internet. At which point any person can look up the data easily. I could see an anti-gun group doing a hack like that.

[*Lulu*]

Very relevant: how recent mass shooters got their guns.

That was a sobering read.

[poppy]

 

 

Also, anyone who read about the Ashley Madison thing knows that hackers sometimes just hack to put the data on the internet. At which point any person can look up the data easily. I could see an anti-gun group doing a hack like that.

The IRS got hacked, too. It's an issue.  But that isn't a reason to abolish public safety measures.

[Chess Dad]

Speaking from experience, I am for stricter gun control laws when it comes to mental illness and people on medications for such. My brother-in-law committed suicide last year while being treated for depression and anxiety. He took Tamiflu the week it happened and actually wrote in a journal showing signs of hallucinations. By paying a simple $10 fee for a background check, he was able to walk out with a gun and commit suicide within 2 hours. If there had been a waiting period of several days, he would have been off the medication. Maybe he wouldn't have followed through. In the journal he considered taking my sister and their special needs child, but thankfully he didn't follow through with that thought. It has been a nightmare for my sister and our family. God has seen us through in many ways, but the heartache it left behind has been difficult. 

 

He had a 10 year long journey in trying to get help for his mental illness. He tried many avenues, including counseling, special diets, exercise, prayer, and medications. No where did he find reliable sources of help in the medical community. A psychologist refused to listen to his suicidal thoughts and drove a car with a license plate, "R U Nuts". A weekend in a mental health facility resulted in him being released early with none of the planned counseling sessions. Medications were the only option most doctors wanted to give. None every really helped him.

 

I feel that you should have to get a license for gun ownership, requiring classes, tests, etc., and that there should always be extensive background checks, including mental health. I also feel there should always be waiting periods no matter where you buy. It's not a popular opinion here in the south, so I don't voice it too much in too many places, but I think anyone would understand why I feel that way given the situation. 

 

:grouphug:

 

I'm sorry you went thru a family suicide.  I've been to many suicide calls and it is a nightmare I would not wish on any family.  

 

I agree with most of what you have posted.  When you talk about a waiting period for gun ownership, there is a simple solution to this problem.  As a police officer, I can instantly check the (National Crime Information Center) NCIC to see if you have a warrant, your drivers record, missing persons, stolen property, and several other records that are instantaneous.  All police departments across this country has access to it.

 

One option, a baby step that would work, would be to either allow all gun sellers to run an instant background check on persons buying/purchasing a weapon or allowing them to call a police station to run an instant background check.  In the case of Gun-Shows, the persons running the gun show could have a police officer on site to run an NCIC on anyone who purchases a weapon.  

 

No system is perfect, and the bad guys will still be able to easily access guns, but the technology is already there to check if a person has a felony record, wanted, or has been flagged as violent against police.  

 

If you've seen my other posts, you know I'm a very conservative, big advocate of U.S. Constitution, 2nd Amendment, but I believe this small measure of checking gun purchases can be agreed on by all.  

 

Of course, this is just my opinion.   :patriot:  

[luuknam]

The IRS got hacked, too. It's an issue.  But that isn't a reason to abolish public safety measures.

 

My comment was about the idea that methheads wanting to steal guns won't hack into databases. The vast majority probably won't, but if someone puts the data on the internet, then you won't need hacking skills to find things out.

 

I don't really care that much about whether there is a national gun registry or not, though I'm not convinced it would do a whole lot of good. As someone who has been diagnosed with mental illnesses (and who is currently on 4 mental health meds), I would like to point out that mental illnesses are tricky... they're subjective as far as diagnosing them and judging the safety of others etc are concerned. It's not like running a lab test to see if you've got the flu. Mental illnesses are diagnosed based on checklists of symptoms, with symptoms for various mental disorders overlapping with others, and criteria still being changed every few years by the APA and the like.

 

One psychiatry intern at the university (several years ago - incidentally the same one who made the nonsensical CPS report) was convinced I'm bipolar. The next 2-3 interns thought the first one was wrong, that it's 'just' anxiety, and my currently psychiatrist (who has been practicing psychiatry for a long long time) also thinks I'm not bipolar. But, on a list of "have you ever been diagnosed with bipolar", the answer would technically be "yes". I don't know if that would count as a "serious mental illness where you shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun" or not, but things like that matter to people. And while I'm talking about bipolar, there are psychiatrists who want to broaden the definition to include people with a pattern of depression-normal-depression-normal etc, because according to some that's better treated with mood stabilizers as well.

 

As a side note, my wife had a bipolar diagnosis well before joining the infantry (and, unsurprisingly, got a mental health discharge after 19 months), since the army was happy to take just about anyone after 9/11 (she didn't come out as trans until years after getting out though, because back then the army would rather have crazy people than people who're gay/trans). One of the guys in her squad got diagnosed with schizophrenia by the army psych and was not discharged nor given desk duty or w/e.

 

Reading that list of how shooters obtained guns, I noticed that some said things like "he was kind of a loner and a loser", or "he was bullied". Okay... does that mean that you shouldn't be able to have a firearm if you're kind of a loner/loser or if you've been bullied? As far as I could tell, most had *not* been diagnosed with a serious mental disorder (and, most people with serious mental disorders don't go about hurting other people either).

[ChocolateReignRemix]

There is really no legitimate debate about a registry making gun owners the targets of burglars.  Your local criminal doesn't pick targets based on information gained from hacking because he doesn't need to do so. 

[luuknam]

There is really no legitimate debate about a registry making gun owners the targets of burglars.  Your local criminal doesn't pick targets based on information gained from hacking because he doesn't need to do so. 

 

Currently, yes. But would you post a sign in your yard announcing your house is a gun free zone? Or conversely, that you own guns?

 

If someone hacks a database and puts the results online, it would be akin to doing that. People wouldn't have to go out and hack a government database on their own. They could just look through the database leaked by others.

 

Maybe you don't care. Maybe you're happy to tell people whether you have guns and if so how many. I'm not. If you were to ask me, I wouldn't tell you if I own guns, nor how many I may or may not own. That way there isn't a strong incentive to break in to steal my hypothetical guns, nor an incentive to break in because I'm defenseless because of my hypothetical non-existent guns. Of course, people can still break in randomly. I just don't think it's a great plan to advertise assets nor lack of defenses.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Currently, yes. But would you post a sign in your yard announcing your house is a gun free zone? Or conversely, that you own guns?

 

If someone hacks a database and puts the results online, it would be akin to doing that. People wouldn't have to go out and hack a government database on their own. They could just look through the database leaked by others.

 

Maybe you don't care. Maybe you're happy to tell people whether you have guns and if so how many. I'm not. If you were to ask me, I wouldn't tell you if I own guns, nor how many I may or may not own. That way there isn't a strong incentive to break in to steal my hypothetical guns, nor an incentive to break in because I'm defenseless because of my hypothetical non-existent guns. Of course, people can still break in randomly. I just don't think it's a great plan to advertise assets nor lack of defenses.

 

Considering there are much more valuable hacking targets than a gun registry I don't see that as a realistic concern.

 

The idea that a "anti-gun" group is going to break federal law to post such a listing is a bit...paranoid.  There is no profit in it, and they would simply be posting a list of people who are engaging in a legal activity (and following the law by being registered).  Posting the list so gun owners could be victimized by burglars would go against the goals of any pro-gun control organization.

 

So that leaves a random hacker doing so, which leads me to ask to what end?  And how many federal databases that have been hacked have been posted online for free?

[luuknam]

Considering there are much more valuable hacking targets than a gun registry I don't see that as a realistic concern.

 

The idea that a "anti-gun" group is going to break federal law to post such a listing is a bit...paranoid.  There is no profit in it, and they would simply be posting a list of people who are engaging in a legal activity (and following the law by being registered).  Posting the list so gun owners could be victimized by burglars would go against the goals of any pro-gun control organization.

 

Was hacking Ashley Madison 'valuable'? I didn't really follow the brouhaha that much, but hackers don't always make money from hacks.

 

And, in this hypothetical scenario, I'd imagine the goal of e.g. an anti-gun group* hacking it would not be to cause gun owners to be burglarized, but rather to bully them by peer pressure or something along those lines. The burglar risk would be a side effect. Plus, it was just an example... I'm not going to think of all possible reasons why people may do things like that. The point is, people do hack databases for various reasons, some for profit, some for the challenge, some for who-knows-why.

 

*I'm not imagining a main-stream group doing that... more of some fringe group. There are fringes at all sides of any spectrum, and people doing crazy and/or illegal stuff as well.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Was hacking Ashley Madison 'valuable'? I didn't really follow the brouhaha that much, but hackers don't always make money from hacks.

 

And, in this hypothetical scenario, I'd imagine the goal of e.g. an anti-gun group* hacking it would not be to cause gun owners to be burglarized, but rather to bully them by peer pressure or something along those lines. The burglar risk would be a side effect. Plus, it was just an example... I'm not going to think of all possible reasons why people may do things like that. The point is, people do hack databases for various reasons, some for profit, some for the challenge, some for who-knows-why.

 

*I'm not imagining a main-stream group doing that... more of some fringe group. There are fringes at all sides of any spectrum, and people doing crazy and/or illegal stuff as well.

 

The people on Ashley Madison were cheating on their spouses, and the site was indirectly (possibly directing) facilitating prostitution.  I also believe there was financial information hacked as well.

 

Again, how many government databases have been hacked with all the information posted online?

 

And for the record, the anti-gun control crowd fought against gun registration back before hacking as an issue.

[luuknam]

The people on Ashley Madison were cheating on their spouses, and the site was indirectly (possibly directing) facilitating prostitution. 

 

Again, how many government databases have been hacked with all the information posted online?

 

And for the record, the anti-gun control crowd fought against gun registration back before hacking as an issue.

 

So, the hackers had ethical problems with Ashley Madison so they hacked it. Some people have ethical problems with gun ownership. I really don't see the stretch.

 

I don't know how many government databases have been hacked with all the info posted online and I'm not going to look it up. It hasn't happened or it's rarely happened are not valid arguments that it won't happen.

 

I don't know why it's relevant what anti-gun control people did before hacking was an issue.

 

But, since you seem to think that I'm being paranoid, let me throw another paranoid thought out there - if there are going to be lots of restrictions on purchasing guns for people with mental health issues, the paranoid people are less likely to go see a mental health care provider for help, and more likely to go out and purchase guns before they end up on a registry where they're not allowed to purchase guns. And if you're really paranoid, you then knock in a window in your house and report your gun stolen while hiding it somewhere, so that in the database it says you once owned a gun but don't anymore, so that They are not going to take away your gun when They think you're too crazy to have a gun. Of course, if you then proceed to shoot up some group of people with your gun, They will still figure out that the gun once belonged to you and that you lied about reporting it stolen, but usually it's not that hard to figure out who did a mass shooting after the fact anyway (it's the prevention part that's tricky).

 

Really though, I'm not against checking to see if someone has been convicted of a violent crime before selling them a gun (though to be honest, I think most violent criminals will find a way to get their hands on a gun even if they can't legally buy them). But as a person with mental health disorders, I'm not real fond of the idea of other people deciding that I'm automatically a danger to others and should not be allowed to possess a firearm, nor of criminals knowing whether I possess a firearm or not.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

So, the hackers had ethical problems with Ashley Madison so they hacked it. Some people have ethical problems with gun ownership. I really don't see the stretch.

 

I don't know how many government databases have been hacked with all the info posted online and I'm not going to look it up. It hasn't happened or it's rarely happened are not valid arguments that it won't happen.

 

I don't know why it's relevant what anti-gun control people did before hacking was an issue.

 

But, since you seem to think that I'm being paranoid, let me throw another paranoid thought out there - if there are going to be lots of restrictions on purchasing guns for people with mental health issues, the paranoid people are less likely to go see a mental health care provider for help, and more likely to go out and purchase guns before they end up on a registry where they're not allowed to purchase guns. And if you're really paranoid, you then knock in a window in your house and report your gun stolen while hiding it somewhere, so that in the database it says you once owned a gun but don't anymore, so that They are not going to take away your gun when They think you're too crazy to have a gun. Of course, if you then proceed to shoot up some group of people with your gun, They will still figure out that the gun once belonged to you and that you lied about reporting it stolen, but usually it's not that hard to figure out who did a mass shooting after the fact anyway (it's the prevention part that's tricky).

 

Really though, I'm not against checking to see if someone has been convicted of a violent crime before selling them a gun (though to be honest, I think most violent criminals will find a way to get their hands on a gun even if they can't legally buy them). But as a person with mental health disorders, I'm not real fond of the idea of other people deciding that I'm automatically a danger to others and should not be allowed to possess a firearm, nor of criminals knowing whether I possess a firearm or not.

 

Again, Ashley Madison also had a financial motive.

 

And it is really difficult to solve any problem if you refuse to look at any possible solution that isn't perfect. 

 

[luuknam]

Again, Ashley Madison also had a financial motive.

 

And it is really difficult to solve any problem if you refuse to look at any possible solution that isn't perfect.

 

I'm not seeing where I'm refusing to look at any solution. I've already said that I don't care that much about a gun registry (I'm not a huge fan of the idea, and I'm not convinced it will be very helpful, and I'm against the idea of saying I can't have a gun because I have a mental health disorder so long as there are millions of guns in the hands of less law-abiding people out there). I do care though if you're saying there's no way it will be hacked and leaked. Upon further reflection, it would be more likely to be hacked and leaked by the pro-gun side, possibly manufacturers. They'd have a financial incentive to it being known who has a gun and who doesn't, in that non-gun owners might want to buy a gun after all criminals know they don't have one. And yes, I'm aware that that's the opposite of my earlier thought, but I'm just brainstorming this. And yes, it'd be illegal, but what Volkswagen did was illegal too.

[mom31257]

:grouphug:

 

I'm sorry you went thru a family suicide.  I've been to many suicide calls and it is a nightmare I would not wish on any family.  

 

I agree with most of what you have posted.  When you talk about a waiting period for gun ownership, there is a simple solution to this problem.  As a police officer, I can instantly check the (National Crime Information Center) NCIC to see if you have a warrant, your drivers record, missing persons, stolen property, and several other records that are instantaneous.  All police departments across this country has access to it.

 

One option, a baby step that would work, would be to either allow all gun sellers to run an instant background check on persons buying/purchasing a weapon or allowing them to call a police station to run an instant background check.  In the case of Gun-Shows, the persons running the gun show could have a police officer on site to run an NCIC on anyone who purchases a weapon.  

 

No system is perfect, and the bad guys will still be able to easily access guns, but the technology is already there to check if a person has a felony record, wanted, or has been flagged as violent against police.  

 

If you've seen my other posts, you know I'm a very conservative, big advocate of U.S. Constitution, 2nd Amendment, but I believe this small measure of checking gun purchases can be agreed on by all.  

 

Of course, this is just my opinion.   :patriot:  

 

My brother-in-law did pay for an instant background check. I think his mental hospital stay for suicidal thoughts plus his medications for treatment of depression should be part of a record that is checked. Suicides make up a large part of gun deaths, yet these records are not part of the process to buy a gun.

 

Requiring training classes and passing tests to get a license are something I would like to see. This would automatically create a waiting period, but I think there should still be a length of time you apply to buy a gun and then actually get to walk out with it. That would hopefully help some situations to calm down. He would have been off the medication my sister thinks pushed him over the edge.