Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:
Instead of included any sort of mental health checking with background checks...

Why not just fething strengthen the whole field/industry of mental health?

The later is a great idea for many western nations, but it doesn't automatically resolve the former. We could... and this might sound crazy... We could do both.

 whembly wrote:
Instead of included any sort of mental health checking with background checks...

Why not just fething strengthen the whole field/industry of mental health?

Better diagnosis...

Better treatment...

Use State/Federal fundings for more Mental Health institutions.

The reason why background checks are advocated in relation to a better mental health system is that if your giving a person treatment, but they are still not fit for ownership of a gun they could still go get a gun if the store had no way to check if the person was crazy (or just to lazy to do so).

 Alexzandvar wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Instead of included any sort of mental health checking with background checks...

Why not just fething strengthen the whole field/industry of mental health?

Better diagnosis...

Better treatment...

Use State/Federal fundings for more Mental Health institutions.

The reason why background checks are advocated in relation to a better mental health system is that if your giving a person treatment, but they are still not fit for ownership of a gun they could still go get a gun if the store had no way to check if the person was crazy (or just to lazy to do so).

So... you know, if someone is crazy enough to get any guns... they're crazy enough to get it anywhere. Doesn't matter if Walmart won't sell any to them.

We can expect that if something can happen it probably will happen. Doesn't mean we don't do anything to reduce the probability. People will never stop murdering other people, but we don't do away with laws against such action. There will always be plane accidents, but we regulate the gak out of those things to reduce the frequency.

Maybe not, but at least it isn't automatically a violation of personal privacy.

I don't mind the idea of people with serious mental conditions being prevented from owning firearms, I just think it would be a very dangerous road to travel down.

It also doesn't solve the problem of people using stolen firearms, of which a very large chunk of gun violence is committed with. Criminals are not completely stupid, they aren't going to go and buy a gun legally and then commit a crime with it. They'll buy a stolen one off the street, they're as easily acquired as cheap ciggs at a corner store.

Its also not uncommon for a gun to bounce around between a bunch of criminals. If the weapon is hot they'll hock it to another guy for $50 who in turn will hock it to another guy when he's done with it.

I'm speaking more in terms of a person who is mentally unstable whembly.

All one has to due is look at the sad state of veterans mental healthcare so see that mental instability that is not treated to can lead to tragic ends and that by disallowing those mentally unstable people harmful things we can soften the tragedy or help eliminate it.

 LordofHats wrote:
We can expect that if something can happen it probably will happen. Doesn't mean we don't do anything to reduce the probability. People will never stop murdering other people, but we don't do away with laws against such action. There will always be plane accidents, but we regulate the gak out of those things to reduce the frequency.

And?

Last I checked it's still illegal to murder someone and nobody is considering changing it.

Mass shootings are very rare occurrences and really do not rack up any significant numbers on the gun violence chart. They just make big news because they are high profile. And again, still illegal last I checked.

Well it's hard to really look at all of the numbers and say how big of an impact it would have, but at the very least The Navy Yard Shooting of last year may have been prevented. A ton of red flags should have gone up with that guy, and the firearm he came in with was legally purchased.

As I said though, it's better to start with making it easier for these people to be getting the help they need, before we start making "lists" of people. "Lists" are never really good, sometimes they are necessary, but they should be limited as much as possible.

 Grey Templar wrote:
And?

"It'll just happen anyway" isn't an argument to not do something. As you've aptly shown in relation to murder laws.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Maybe not, but at least it isn't automatically a violation of personal privacy.

I don't mind the idea of people with serious mental conditions being prevented from owning firearms, I just think it would be a very dangerous road to travel down.

It also doesn't solve the problem of people using stolen firearms, of which a very large chunk of gun violence is committed with. Criminals are not completely stupid, they aren't going to go and buy a gun legally and then commit a crime with it. They'll buy a stolen one off the street, they're as easily acquired as cheap ciggs at a corner store.

Its also not uncommon for a gun to bounce around between a bunch of criminals. If the weapon is hot they'll hock it to another guy for $50 who in turn will hock it to another guy when he's done with it.

The need for a better mental health system with better backround check's lies less in stopping robbery or "crimes involving guns with a purpose" and more in stopping things like sandy hook or Aurora from happening. Or various incidents were extremely unstable people attempt suicide by cop or well, kill their family and then end themselves. The saddest incident Iv seen is were a former SEAL was helping Veterans deal with there mental issues by taking them range shooting, and then one army vet took the weapon and killed the SEAL.

And the road of protecting people from an issue that is causing death is not a dangerous road, its the duty of the government to seek measures to protect its people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
Well it's hard to really look at all of the numbers and say how big of an impact it would have, but at the very least The Navy Yard Shooting of last year may have been prevented. A ton of red flags should have gone up with that guy, and the firearm he came in with was legally purchased.

As I said though, it's better to start with making it easier for these people to be getting the help they need, before we start making "lists" of people. "Lists" are never really good, sometimes they are necessary, but they should be limited as much as possible.

The ability for people in authority to make lists to better help address issues is one of the most basic parts of civilization.

For example the census helps the government keep track of population growth!

Just because yes, lists have been used for bad purposes does not mean we should be afraid lists and people who use them.

Ironic isn't it? People say the exact same thing about guns!

The Census doesn't keep track of name, social, address, etc... it just counts numbers.

What your advocating is for any joe schmoe at a counter to know whether or not the guy standing across from him has mental health issues.

They are not in any way shape or form equal.

And how would that have stopped something like the Naval Yard Shooter? He had no record of treatment, diagnosis, etc...

Had he instead gotten the help he needed, instead of getting stuck in the VA Beuracracy...

 Alexzandvar wrote:


The need for a better mental health system with better backround check's lies less in stopping robbery or "crimes involving guns with a purpose" and more in stopping things like sandy hook or Aurora from happening.

You see, here is the rub.

Things like Aurora or Sandy Hook do not happen enough to be worth making sweeping changes over. Hundreds of people are not dying every year to mass shootings.

Also, neither of those incidents would have been stopped by tighter gun restrictions. The one guy killed his mother and stole her guns. There were also the bombs, which would have been more devastating than what the shooting actually ended up being.

If you really want to reduce gun violence, you focus on the "robbery gone wrong" type of crimes. Not the once in a blue moon killing sprees.

Making legislation in reaction to a mass shooting is like switching what army you play in 40k because you got totally stomped in one particular game because your dice rolled really bad. You don't plan for extremes, you plan for the average results.

 djones520 wrote:

What your advocating is for any joe schmoe at a counter to know whether or not the guy standing across from him has mental health issues.

Like any Joe Shmoe can go onto the net and find out if someone is a sexual predator? Or if they've ever committed a crime? Or if they were fired from their position for gross negligence? Or the lists of people who can't go near a plane let alone on one?

Those lists you're afraid of? They already exist. The limitation is who has access to them and compiling a list of "don't give a gun" people, is a drop in the water especially since no one has advocated a public list of crazy people. People get paid to find out what other people have or have not done regularly. News flash, the internet exists now. All of this information is obtainable with little effort.

 LordofHats wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

What your advocating is for any joe schmoe at a counter to know whether or not the guy standing across from him has mental health issues.

Like any Joe Shmoe can go onto the net and find out if someone is a sexual predator? Or if they've ever committed a crime? Or if they were fired from their position for gross negligence? Or the lists of people who can't go near a plane let alone on one?

Those lists you're afraid of? They already exist. The limitation is who has access to them and compiling a list of "don't give a gun" people, is a drop in the water especially since no one has advocated a public list of crazy people. People get paid to find out what other people have or have not done regularly. News flash, the internet exists now. All of this information is obtainable with little effort.

And medical privacy is the most sacred of sacreds, and now folks are advocating opening that one up.

 djones520 wrote:
The Census doesn't keep track of name, social, address, etc... it just counts numbers.

What your advocating is for any joe schmoe at a counter to know whether or not the guy standing across from him has mental health issues.

They are not in any way shape or form equal.

And how would that have stopped something like the Naval Yard Shooter? He had no record of treatment, diagnosis, etc...

Had he instead gotten the help he needed, instead of getting stuck in the VA Beuracracy...

The point of a background check system is not to just tell Joe Schmoe that the guy at the counter is crazy, it's to tell him that he should not sell a fire arm to this mentally unstable individual who could not only be a threat to himself with a firearm, but to others

And yes, as pointed out by me and other earlier investing in a better health system would work alongside this.

Can't blame you for your dislike of the VA's process times, but I hope that your channeling that dislike into strength into helping advocate for better funding and staffing for them! The cuts to the VA recently have been inexcusable.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Hundreds of people are not dying every year to mass shootings.

There are about 20 mass shootings a year and the average fatalities for a mass shooting is 12. So technically over 200 people every year are killed by mass shootings.

 djones520 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

What your advocating is for any joe schmoe at a counter to know whether or not the guy standing across from him has mental health issues.

Like any Joe Shmoe can go onto the net and find out if someone is a sexual predator? Or if they've ever committed a crime? Or if they were fired from their position for gross negligence? Or the lists of people who can't go near a plane let alone on one?

Those lists you're afraid of? They already exist. The limitation is who has access to them and compiling a list of "don't give a gun" people, is a drop in the water especially since no one has advocated a public list of crazy people. People get paid to find out what other people have or have not done regularly. News flash, the internet exists now. All of this information is obtainable with little effort.

And medical privacy is the most sacred of sacreds, and now folks are advocating opening that one up.

Well are not those "folks" our argument is that a system that keeps track of those individuals who suffer from mental health issues will not only help others in prevent him from acquiring something dangerous, but to also help said person receive the proper treatment he or she needs

Like how medical companies have lists of people who can't get a transplant for preexisting conditions or behavior? Or lists of organ donors?

now folks are advocating opening that one up.

No they're not. A background check doesn't even have to specify why someone is denied something to the individual requesting the check. A system can easily be devised where a name is sent in, checked, and a simple 'yes' or 'no' returned and if the person seeking a gun wants to know why they were denied they can do what we already do, call the company that did the check and ask why.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:


The need for a better mental health system with better backround check's lies less in stopping robbery or "crimes involving guns with a purpose" and more in stopping things like sandy hook or Aurora from happening.

You see, here is the rub.

Things like Aurora or Sandy Hook do not happen enough to be worth making sweeping changes over. Hundreds of people are not dying every year to mass shootings.

Also, neither of those incidents would have been stopped by tighter gun restrictions. The one guy killed his mother and stole her guns. There were also the bombs, which would have been more devastating than what the shooting actually ended up being.

If you really want to reduce gun violence, you focus on the "robbery gone wrong" type of crimes. Not the once in a blue moon killing sprees.

Making legislation in reaction to a mass shooting is like switching what army you play in 40k because you got totally stomped in one particular game because your dice rolled really bad. You don't plan for extremes, you plan for the average results.

You do understand that we are not advocating tighter gun restrictions we are advocating for a system with those who have mental issues cannot acquire dangerous things they can use to harms others and themselves.

So unless you have some mental issue, your ability to own and operate a fire arm will no be infringed upon.

And you propose forcing these people to be evaluated by a mental health professional how?

Not necessarily a problem of forcing medication. So many people are never diagnosed, mis-diagnosed, ineffectively treated, not monitored like they should be. Medical health care in the US is kind of messed up these days and no one cares because 'they're crazy.'

And as to forcing medication, should we really be allowing schizophrenics to wander urban streets in a constant psychosis because they don't want to be treated? They're actively hurting themselves.

 Alexzandvar wrote:

You do understand that we are not advocating tighter gun restrictions we are advocating for a system with those who have mental issues cannot acquire dangerous things they can use to harms others and themselves.

So unless you have some mental issue, your ability to own and operate a fire arm will no be infringed upon.

so, you're advocating taking guns away from basically every veteran who ever deployed??? EVERY Vet that I know, myself included put up all kinds of red flags regarding mental health, PTSD, etc. and since we all know how our Glorious Leaders like to write laws, it would be too heavy handed, and anyone who puts up a flag will have to be seen, and probably get some other marks against them in regards to acquiring something that is their right.

 LordofHats wrote:
Not necessarily a problem of forcing medication. So many people are never diagnosed, mis-diagnosed, ineffectively treated, not monitored like they should be. Medical health care in the US is kind of messed up these days and no one cares because 'they're crazy.'

And these situations happen because you can't force a previously non-violent person to be diagnosed, mis-diagnosed, treated, or monitored. Especially if they're over 18.

I'm all about improved mental health services. But as the adage goes, "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink."

As such, any "mental health" restrictions put in place for firearm ownership would be, for the most part, fruitless. Our present restrictions do, however, exclude felons from attaining firearms legally. Those restrictions still can't prevent felons from acquiring them illegally.

 cincydooley wrote:
And you propose forcing these people to be evaluated by a mental health professional how?

Well already there are plenty of people we know have mental issues and want treatment that cannot get it (or are waiting for it) such as veterans. So thats a group of people already we can help get into a system for getting them aid and ensuring there safety.

Although your question on it's face is odd, since society naturally pushes people who are mentally unwell to the fringe, and in the fringe they are easier to find or are motivated by a desire to become able to be part of the rest of society by getting treatment. Parents often get their kids help if they need it, and if parent ignores a obvious mental problem that would cause their child to harm others they would be tried for child abuse (This is directly addressing Adam Lanza's mom's unwillingness to get him help)

Also: do you know how many homeless people are such because of mental illness? Often times the police are puzzled on how to deal with these individuals since they have noone to hand them off to, which ties into the point about refining our healthcare system for mental patients.

You touch on one of the reasons why the solution isn't simple, but what solution to a large problem ever is?

 LordofHats wrote:


And as to forcing medication, should we really be allowing schizophrenics to wander urban streets in a constant psychosis because they don't want to be treated? They're actively hurting themselves.

If they're thusfar non-violent and non-criminal, absolutely.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Hundreds of people are not dying every year to mass shootings.

There are about 20 mass shootings a year and the average fatalities for a mass shooting is 12. So technically over 200 people every year are killed by mass shootings.

That doesn't really qualify for my "hundreds" statement. You'd need 600, 800, a thousand, to really qualify.

And that is still a very VERY tiny portion of the population.

EVERY Vet that I know, myself included put up all kinds of red flags regarding mental health, PTSD

That's kind of what I'm talking about. PTSD like many conditions carries a stigma in complete ignorance of the reality of the condition. Many vets have very mild cases of PTSD that are ignored, or aren't ignored and are then treated like they're off the rocker.

My dad doesn't like sudden loud noises, he refuses to sit with his back to a room, and I've seen him actively avoid parking near vans or trucks or even driving past them in parking lots. He wasn't diagnosed with anything, and he's not a threat to anyone, even if he could use a little help dealing with these phobias he's acquired. But if he got labeled with PTSD suddenly, people would treat him differently, because we aren't very well educated about mental health in the US and we actively ignore understanding it.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:


And that is still a very VERY tiny portion of the population.

Oh I know. I just wanted to clarify


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:


And these situations happen because you can't force a previously non-violent person to be diagnosed, mis-diagnosed, treated, or monitored. Especially if they're over 18.

So we put the power of deciding if someone is okay in the hands of someone who can't even remember their own name from the voices in their head? i think someone who is not mentally competent should have the last say in how their condition is treated.

 Alexzandvar wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
And you propose forcing these people to be evaluated by a mental health professional how?

Well already there are plenty of people we know have mental issues and want treatment that cannot get it (or are waiting for it) such as veterans. So thats a group of people already we can help get into a system for getting them aid and ensuring there safety.

Although your question on it's face is odd, since society naturally pushes people who are mentally unwell to the fringe, and in the fringe they are easier to find or are motivated by a desire to become able to be part of the rest of society by getting treatment. Parents often get their kids help if they need it, and if parent ignores a obvious mental problem that would cause their child to harm others they would be tried for child abuse (This is directly addressing Adam Lanza's mom's unwillingness to get him help)

Also: do you know how many homeless people are such because of mental illness? Often times the police are puzzled on how to deal with these individuals since they have noone to hand them off to, which ties into the point about refining our healthcare system for mental patients.

You touch on one of the reasons why the solution isn't simple, but what solution to a large problem ever is?

I know in your wide-eyed, college freshman naivety you're trying really hard to put some solid arguments together, but the fact remains that we can't force treatment on non-violent people. Can't do it, save for some very specific situations, all which require previous incarceration or hospitalization.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Hundreds of people are not dying every year to mass shootings.

There are about 20 mass shootings a year and the average fatalities for a mass shooting is 12. So technically over 200 people every year are killed by mass shootings.

That doesn't really qualify for my "hundreds" statement. You'd need 600, 800, a thousand, to really qualify.

And that is still a very VERY tiny portion of the population.

Your moving the goal posts. Using this logic we should do nothing to combat terrorism because it kills fewer than even 200 Americans a year.

Anything that kills Americans is bad, or should we tell the parents who lost there kids in the sandy hook shooting that their kids death's are not worth doing anything about?

What do we tell the family's who lost loved ones in tragic but rare events? That their family member is no less important just because they died to something that kills less people each year and that it is the governments duty to seek ways to prevent tragedy from striking like this in the future.

And for the record if we put just as much effort into combating mass shootings are we do terrorism we would have lot less mass shootings.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Hundreds of people are not dying every year to mass shootings.

There are about 20 mass shootings a year and the average fatalities for a mass shooting is 12. So technically over 200 people every year are killed by mass shootings.

That doesn't really qualify for my "hundreds" statement. You'd need 600, 800, a thousand, to really qualify.

And that is still a very VERY tiny portion of the population.

According to the FBI, between 2006 and 2013 there were 900 mass shooting deaths. Averages out to 128 a year. (Less then 100 in 2012). So roughly 1% of deaths were due to Mass Shootings.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alexzandvar wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Hundreds of people are not dying every year to mass shootings.

There are about 20 mass shootings a year and the average fatalities for a mass shooting is 12. So technically over 200 people every year are killed by mass shootings.

That doesn't really qualify for my "hundreds" statement. You'd need 600, 800, a thousand, to really qualify.

And that is still a very VERY tiny portion of the population.

Your moving the goal posts. Using this logic we should do nothing to combat terrorism because it kills fewer than even 200 Americans a year.

Anything that kills Americans is bad, or should we tell the parents who lost there kids in the sandy hook shooting that their kids death's are not worth doing anything about?

What do we tell the family's who lost loved ones in tragic but rare events? That their family member is no less important just because they died to something that kills less people each year and that it is the governments duty to seek ways to prevent tragedy from striking like this in the future.

And for the record if we put just as much effort into combating mass shootings are we do terrorism we would have lot less mass shootings.

I think what he is saying is that instead of spending all this time, effort, legislation, money, etc... on something that makes up 1% of the problem, why don't we spend it on things like gang shootings that make up 80% of gun homocides a year. That's where you will see the real impacts.