If We're Gonna Bring Up Mental Illness...

[Mightydog]

So there should be some sort of mandatory reporting then.

Believe there already is. I’m saying that if Cruz was arrested when the allegations were investigated he would have been entered into the system as charged with parental abuse. That would have shown up. Issue is also about the people that have already purchased weapons and get arrested for a reportable offense. Fine, the can’t purchase any more firearms but what about the ones they already have. How do you address that?

 

[Sealion]

Woodstock?

 

[iH8DemLibz]

So how do we get some one like him into the background check system to prevent him from have a firearm?

That's what the states need to figure out. His abuse of animals and his open threats to kill people should have allowed authorities to scoop him up. Then report him to NICS.

But the scooping up of citizens must be very targeted. Based on real, documented, evidence of threats to self or others. Not a wide net designed to scoop up as many "Potentially" dangerous people as possible.

If this isn't addressed correctly, it'll be the Salem Witch Hunts all over again. Maybe we'll figure it out in another 300 years. Humans are slow to catch on.

 

[MDFF2008]

Therapists are required to report people who are a threat to others or themselves. It is one of the exceptions to patient privacy.

One of the things I see is that we need more resources for those who are too mentally ill to function on their own. I also think we may need some sort of mental illness outpatient monitoring where people can be adjudicated to be subject to monitoring to ensure they are taking their meds regularly.

 

[pbharvey]

Imagine believing in some mythical figure who created the universe with His command and then had His own son put to death.
Crazy.

On February 13, 2018, The View’s Joy Behar and Sonny Hostin took aim at Christians- calling Christianity “dangerous” and a “mental illness.” Behar mocked Vice President Mike Pence’s faith stating, “That's called mental illness, if I'm not correct. Hearing voices.”

https://www.mrc.org/conservatives-fight-back/show/view

 

[lonewolf220]

That's what the states need to figure out. His abuse of animals and his open threats to kill people should have allowed authorities to scoop him up. Then report him to NICS.

But the scooping up of citizens must be very targeted. Based on real, documented, evidence of threats to self or others. Not a wide net designed to scoop up as many "Potentially" dangerous people as possible.

If this isn't addressed correctly, it'll be the Salem Witch Hunts all over again.

This is what concerns me. Creating laws that are narrowly targeted require time and effort. And in this current environment I don’t think politicians are willing to put in either. They want to look like they are doing something and that will probably result in some knee jerk reaction that will only succeed in infringing rights and do nothing to reduce actual crime.

 

[FrankOceanXray]

While we are detailing all the cracks this kid slipped through, are teachers not mandatory reporters?

How about this, we are trying to fix symptoms. Let us fix the fundamentals. The progs are ruining things, boiling the frog and we are trying to add ice cubes instead of getting the gas shut off.

 

[Rab1515]

While we are detailing all the cracks this kid slipped through, are teachers not mandatory reporters?

How about this, we are trying to fix symptoms. Let us fix the fundamentals. The progs are ruining things, boiling the frog and we are trying to add ice cubes instead of getting the gas shut off.

I though mandatory reporters were only for child abuse?

 

[fred2207]

Agreed. Hard no from me on this too. The onus is on the state to prove you're a danger (based on having committed a violent crime or threatened violent crime) NOT on you as a law-abiding citizen to prove you're not a danger. Hard stop.

This!!! What someone may do is second guessing before the fact and is no basis for restricting a constitutional right....

 

[FrankOceanXray]

I though mandatory reporters were only for child abuse?

Teacher is made aware a fight is going to happen during lunch? Tommy has a hit list? Suzy is selling pills? Tony told others he will burn down the stadium?


Do not believe it is only child abuse.... company/county policy or state or fed?

 

[lonewolf220]

Teacher is made aware a fight is going to happen during lunch? Tommy has a hit list? Suzy is selling pills? Tony told others he will burn down the stadium?


Do not believe it is only child abuse.... company/county policy or state or fed?

They may be required to report. But who would they report to? Local police? In this case local police seemed unable or unwilling to do something with over 40 calls related to him or his brother. I can’t imagine a report from a teacher was going to make a difference.

 

[Rab1515]

Teacher is made aware a fight is going to happen during lunch? Tommy has a hit list? Suzy is selling pills? Tony told others he will burn down the stadium?


Do not believe it is only child abuse.... company/county policy or state or fed?

I believe it is not illegal to ignore the stuff in first paragraph at least federally, maybe by state or local law it is. Not defending ignoring those events, just that it is not criminal.The only mandatory reporting I am aware of is at the federal level and has to do with child abuses. Is the more to it than that?

 

[wabbit]

the 4473 is horribly lax on checking for this variable. That's what I'd like to address.

What I propose may already count, to most of you, as a violation of the Second Amendment. Then again, I think destructive device classification and tax stamps on suppressors fit that mold too but they're minor annoyances rather than total authoritarian crack downs.

I propose that mental health screenings be required and attached to 4473's. That means you and I would have to get one (with some kind of lengthy renewal period) and background checks would need to be adjusted to look for them. If none was found, the firearm will just be held by the FFL until you can get one.

Of course, one of the major problems with this is determining what's "too crazy" to own a gun. I'm curious to know what ya'll think of this, because I've proposed it to some anti-gunners and they seem okay with the idea, but then again, they would be. I'm also curious to know if there are any other solutions you may have thought of, or if you think mental health is worth addressing in this context at all.

Good work, I hope Mike Bloomberg pays you for your effort.
1. establish your credibility as a gun owner, including stating how you think current laws are infringement of the 2nd Amendment.
2. offer your "suggestion" as a reasonable compromise. Kick start us down the slippery slope.
3. close by asking others for input, knowing you've only stirred up the pot. Based on the responses, you might identify a sentiment you can target for further slippery slope topics.

Good job.

 

[iH8DemLibz]

 

[Outta Air]

Damn.

Logic. Reason. Truth.

Works for me.

Sometimes those three do work the best!!!

 

[Threeband]

Mental illness is indefinable. Social Anxiety should be prohibiting? How about "homophobia?" I believe homophobia is in the DSM.

How about arachnophobia? Should fear of spiders be prohibiting?

Social Freaking Anxiety? Give me a break. Shyness should be prohibiting?

--------

97% of psychiatrists are anti gun.

Even the pro gun doctors won't want to go on record saying "Joe Zilch is no danger, and is okay to have a gun."

What you suggest is absolutely unworkable and uncceptable.

How about people pass a mental evaluation to vote?

People come up with these old, unworkable ideas thinking they have some clever and brilliant plan, not realizing the ideas were refuted long ago.

,,,

I haven't looked at the responses, just posted. I assume your suggestion went down in spectacular flames

 

[Mightydog]

OP sounds a lot like Hunterjjd......the one that started the thread “we need more gun control”. Awful similar ideas about 2A rights. Just thinking...

 

[A Lil Teapot 89]

Good work, I hope Mike Bloomberg pays you for your effort.
1. establish your credibility as a gun owner, including stating how you think current laws are infringement of the 2nd Amendment.
2. offer your "suggestion" as a reasonable compromise. Kick start us down the slippery slope.
3. close by asking others for input, knowing you've only stirred up the pot. Based on the responses, you might identify a sentiment you can target for further slippery slope topics.

Good job.

If I was on Bloomberg's payroll, I wouldn't be hanging out on a forum with you losers.

 

[Jim12]

Mental illness is indefinable. Social Anxiety should be prohibiting? How about "homophpbia?" I believe homophobia is in the DSM.

How about arachnophobia? Should fear of spiders be prohibiting?

Social Freaking Anxiety? Give me a break. Shyness should be prohibiting?

--------

97% of psychiatrists are anti gun.

Even the pro gun doctors won't want to go on record saying "Joe Zilch is no danger, and is okay to have a gun."

What you suggest is absolutely unworkable and uncceptable.

How about people pass a mental evaluation to vote?

People come up with these old, unworkable ideas thinking they have some clever and brilliant plan, not realizing the ideas were refuted long ago.

,,,

I haven't looked at the responses, just posted. I assume your suggestion went down in spectacular flames

How about opposing the gov't? Worked for Stalin.

 

[Mightydog]

That’s “Mr. Losers” if you please! We do have some standards to uphold!!