next »

[helpful]

Licensing and registration of gun owners is a prelude to confiscation. 

How do you deal with those diagnosed who already own guns?  The same way you deal with those convicted of a felony who own guns.

I thought we had made so much progress in this dialogue. But now we have to step back? Perhaps I am confused, but how does one deal with those convicted of a felony who owns guns? How does one know they own a gun? They must have to register it, or register themselves in the first place that they own a gun?

How else would you be able to confiscate a gun from them? How would you be able to do so with someone who 'goes off the deep end" to use a metaphor.....

[newbie]

I oppose the idea of registering or licensing. . .I support the idea of checking, thoroughly checking at the time of purchase.  That system is in place already, but could and obviously should be strengthened, especially in the area of mental illness that poses a threat.  Licensing and registration of gun owners is a prelude to confiscation. 

Why? Why do you oppose licensing?

[tolerantly]

Actually it is not only legal but in some states mandatory for psych hospitals to turn over the names of people who have been committed.  They go on the registry and can't buy guns.  This is only somewhat helpful.  (Please excuse me. I have an assignment due for sixth graders tonight.  Short sentences hide complex writing. From Word's grade-level checker.)  Anyway -- yes, it means people who've been committed can't go to Wal-Mart and buy guns.  That doesn't stop them from buying guns with the serial numbers filed off, though; nor does it stop dangerous people who don't manage to make it into the system from moseying down to the gun store and stocking up.       

I recall something from NYC maybe 10 years ago about the number of illegal guns on the streets and the near-impossibility of making a dent in the problem.  Granted, this was from a gun lobby, but if the numbers were correct within an order of magnitude, they're impressive.

There are a number of problems with forcing treatment compliance on severely mentally ill people, btw.  For one thing, what are you going to do when they say no?  Put them in jail?  Where?  Put ankle bracelets on them?  Who's going to chase them around or arrest them when they get the bracelets off?  Also, who decides what's "severe", and over what span?  How do you evaluate someone who's good and raving one day out of ten?  Thirty?  Twice a year?
 
I have no answers in mind for any of these questions, btw.  Just pointing out some of the problems and suggesting some reasons that people like Cho end up wandering around on their own.  You're very lucky, with mental illness, if it actually shows up as something obvious and consistent.  From what I've seen so far, that's not what usually happens. 

[helpful]

But, tolerantly, what do you do to people who were Ok mentally when they bought a gun and then later on they are not OK mentally. How do you even know they have a gun if there is no licensing or registration system?

[draco]

All of you who want to lump mental illness all into a single, easily definable box, please quit.

[helpful]

What really defies belief is fire departments have recently required all purchasers of things like chemicals and hazardous things to register what they have with the fire department and what buildings they are in so that if there is a fire they know what they are dealing with.

Yet, how would the police know if they go into an apartment on domestic dispute whether there is a gun in there if there is no registration process on the guns?

I'd think we would want to protect our police forces.

PS. Many police forces want some form of gun or gun owner registration system. It stands to reason as their lives are at stake.

[livefreeordie2]

The short answer is yes. . . of course.  We live in an information age with instant communication.  We require health care professionals to report certain things and requiring a report of mental illness that poses a threat is a no-brainer.  

And illegal. Or do you want to suspend the last shred of privacy we have so you can own a gun?

Let me see if I understand you.  You are suggesting that it is preferable to prevent everyone from purchasing guns so that someone who is mentally ill to the point where he is a threat to others can keep that fact private?  Take guns out of the mix for the moment.  If a mental health professional becomes aware that a mentally ill patient is likely to harm others, you don't think there should be a mechanism for dealing with that in the interests of privacy?  I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. . . I'm telling you how I understand what you said.  

[livefreeordie2]

Licensing and registration of gun owners is a prelude to confiscation. 

How do you deal with those diagnosed who already own guns?  The same way you deal with those convicted of a felony who own guns.

I thought we had made so much progress in this dialogue. But now we have to step back? Perhaps I am confused, but how does one deal with those convicted of a felony who owns guns? How does one know they own a gun? They must have to register it, or register themselves in the first place that they own a gun?

How else would you be able to confiscate a gun from them? How would you be able to do so with someone who 'goes off the deep end" to use a metaphor.....

It's why we have courts. . . It's done all the time.  If someone is believed to own weapons, they are required to surrender them - or have them taken.  That part of this issue is not rocket science.

[anthroboy]

When a child is lost in Wal-Mart, the store has a Code Adam. Who doesn't know or understand what Code Adam is? Who doesn't know what an Amber Alert means when a child is abducted? At one time, before horrible crimes were committed against Adam and Amber, real kids, these alerts didn't exist. Someone took action and learned from those tragedies and changed the system and the law and how to alert the public.(emphasis added)

See, that's the thing.  When have we seen another tragedy like this one?  When have we seen an obviously troubled individual first go to a dormitory, kill two people, then stop by the post office to mail some blistering commentary to NBC before swinging into a lecture hall for the big rampage?

We will learn from this tragedy, and we will be more cautious in the future.  However, your insinuation that the Virginia Tech administration and police force should have anticipated the sequence of events . . . well, I find it preposterous and disrespectful.

[helpful]

Licensing and registration of gun owners is a prelude to confiscation. 

How do you deal with those diagnosed who already own guns?  The same way you deal with those convicted of a felony who own guns.

I thought we had made so much progress in this dialogue. But now we have to step back? Perhaps I am confused, but how does one deal with those convicted of a felony who owns guns? How does one know they own a gun? They must have to register it, or register themselves in the first place that they own a gun?

How else would you be able to confiscate a gun from them? How would you be able to do so with someone who 'goes off the deep end" to use a metaphor.....

It's why we have courts. . . It's done all the time.  If someone is believed to own weapons, they are required to surrender them - or have them taken.  That part of this issue is not rocket science.

But think about the implications of your statement. So the courts will know someone has a gun? How will they know that if there is no registration or licensing system? "Believed to own weapons" -- how does that happen, in fact. Rumours? Ratting on a neighbour? Spies?

Don't  you think it would be more efficient and effective to have some sort of record as to who owns guns, rather than having police following up tips and rumours and ratting out by an enemy? (I am pretty sure that police would prefer a better system than that!)

It seems to me in your desire to defend a questionable principle, you are blinding yourself to the implications of your statements.

[prytania3]

The short answer is yes. . . of course.  We live in an information age with instant communication.  We require health care professionals to report certain things and requiring a report of mental illness that poses a threat is a no-brainer.  

And illegal. Or do you want to suspend the last shred of privacy we have so you can own a gun?

Let me see if I understand you.  You are suggesting that it is preferable to prevent everyone from purchasing guns so that someone who is mentally ill to the point where he is a threat to others can keep that fact private?  Take guns out of the mix for the moment.  If a mental health professional becomes aware that a mentally ill patient is likely to harm others, you don't think there should be a mechanism for dealing with that in the interests of privacy?  I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. . . I'm telling you how I understand what you said.  

Yes.

You, however, are not worth talking to.

[tolerantly]

But, tolerantly, what do you do to people who were Ok mentally when they bought a gun and then later on they are not OK mentally. How do you even know they have a gun if there is no licensing or registration system?

Well, ideally, you don't do anything to them.  But about the gun part -- the answer is you don't know.  Personally, on the whole I'm in favor of the idea of "You get diagnosed with certain things and presumptively some cops show up and take your guns.  You can fight to get them back later."  There are problems with this, though.  First, nobody knows if you have illegal guns.  Second, these kinds of laws may make people less likely to seek treatment and may make MH professionals (not the world's sanest themselves) less likely to diagnose or write notes.  Third, the odds are very good that if you're not OK mentally but also not out committing crimes, nobody official will know you're sick, because a hallmark of many mental illnesses is lack of insight into the illness.  Meaning (among other things) that plenty of sick people fail to wander into psychiatrists' offices and say, "Hi, I think I'm severely mentally ill, can you fix me up?"  Or they do, once, and then don't come back.  It's not like pneumonia. 
 
Again, I think we'll see problems from this with the vet at-home TBI cases.  At least they'll have diagnoses, but nobody's going to be out routinely checking their houses for guns.  I think we will see quite a few murders out of it, and we'll end up at the same point in debate. 

[draco]

Tolerantly,

You are being anything but tolerant.  Mental illness is a very serious issue that takes many forms.  It is wrong of you to try to lump them all into one category. 

Helpful,

The same goes for you.  You are being anything but helpful by trying to lump all sorts of mental illnesses into the same category.

Livefreeordie2,

You're new or are you?  You seem familiar somehow...  I'll take the benefit of the doubt to say that you should spend a little more time before you post....I realize its a particularly tragic time....so its ripe for politics right? NO....think of all the other people who read these boards.



I am saddened that the Va. Tech incident was perpetrated by an individual who had some serious issues.  He has been characterized (correctly) as a very troubled and depressed individual.  Under those terms, he was "mentally ill".  However, I hope that the individuals on this forum can recognize that the term "mentally ill" has many different connotations...many of which are misused...     

There are many different forms of mental illness.  If you are going to use terms, then get your facts straight.  Mental illnesses might include, but are certainly not limited to:  depression, psychosis, bipolar disorder, anxiety, schizophrenia (which I think has been redefined), multiple personality, eating disorders......      I don't know what else....  I'm not a psychologist and I don't have a DSM handy.

[tolerantly]

Merigan,

Calm down.  I am doing no such thing, and wouldn't.  I'm in the midst of divorcing a guy with the labels, which I think are frequently useless anyway.  It is true, though, that we have a large class of illnesses that we call "mental illness" for lack of any better term.  Different illnesses seem to carry different risks, but all the definitions are exceedingly squidgy and descriptive, mostly because we don't know what we're talking about.

All that said.  Yes, I am still in favor of "this list of diagnoses means goodbye guns," because a) I'm not all that keen on anyone's having guns; and b) it's the best we can do at the moment for keeping guns away from people perceived to be less rational, who knows when, than most. 

I'd be delighted to see my ex on a no-gun registry, btw.  Mostly to make committing suicide that much harder for him.  I expect the mood will come around again.

[draco]

Okay.

I've finally seen the pictures of Cho's Show. 

My words to describe him are 'f***ing psycho'.

But I will still ask people not to use a PC euphemism such as 'mentally ill' to describe such a sick individual.

Define Cho for what he was....not for a generalization that wrongly insinuates others for whatever condition they happen to have.