Some States Do Not Report Mental Illness To Federal database

[Geister]

If psychology which the science of the mind or of mental states and processes and behavior; is considered fuzzy science. Then the medical field which is also associated with this area of science should be considered fuzzy in your estimation...RIGHT???

No.

Obviously you know very little about psychology. Like I said before, take a community college class on psychology and you'll see how it's a spectulative field. Psychologists bickering and disagreeing with either other and various schools of psychology competeing with each other.

Medical field on the other hand, if you walk into a hospital with a hole in your head, you have a hole in your head, no disputing that. Now with rare diseases it's a bit harder but usually you don't have a ton of doctors disputing over what a patient has, unlike Jungian and Freudian psychologists.

Simply put, psychologists don't really know for certain what's going through a person's mind and what's exactly causing their behavior. Nobody can. All they can provide is a diagnosis based on like experiences and research with other people. Psychologists have to fill in a lot of the gaps with their own opinions.

Now in the medical field, if somebody's bleeding out of a hole in his head, you just stop the bleeding and fix it. With rare diseases there's more analyzing but no where as much as psychology.

Psychology really didn't even become an actual field in it's own right until the ninteenth century, when people starting paying more attention to behavior and took notes for further study and reference. The medical field, on the other hand, has been around about as long as Humans have.

FICTION.

Well of course it was fiction but you are totally missing the point. Psychologists base their diagnosis on their PERCEPTIONS about a person. They can't just dig into a person's head and figure out what's wrong with them, UNLIKE medical doctors.

Now if you're telling me that you want someone to make a decision on your gun rights based on their own perceptions and opinions, I don't think you really realize what a dangerous precident you are putting yourself into. I'd rather take my chances and live with the very rare chance that I will be shot by a deranged psychopath than to give the government more unconstitutional powers that they do not need and will simply abuse. Abuse is what's the government's been doing the past 200 years.

Most of times I notice you use fictitious info when giveing examples.

No you don't because the only fictionous bits I have said has been that movie and the second half of Grindhouse, with the psycho killing women with his cars. But if you look up all the vehicular manslaughter cases which resulted in convictions, that's NOT fiction.

Those movies reminded me of situations that occur in REAL LIFE. Only reason I brought them up is to give you a visual example based on something you might have seen.

I would love to see a real example that everyone have encountered before, not Hollywood movies.

Everyone have encountered before? What does that mean? Not everyone has encountered everything.

But if you want, do some research on your own. I'm not going to sit here and spoon feed you information. A lot of this stuff you can find on your own:

Constitution of the United States
The Bill of Rights
Past abuses of government power
Murders and manslaughter using objects besides firearms
Etc.

Also, we shouldn't assume that everyone here is on the intro level and haven't finished their Master's Degree Level.

What is that supposed to mean? Anyone who has a master's degree is used to looking up information on their own anyway.

FICTION. Stick to the facts in response. Nowhere in previous posts have it been even suggested the penal requirements for a person with mental illness.

Gosh dude, you're funny to write responses to because you never really understand what is written and you go off on rants about some subject that only you think we were talking about.

I never attacked anyone on here for suggesting that mental patients should be locked up. I don't know where that came from. What I was talking about is the violent, deranged types that you are afraid will purchase a gun, even though you totally ignore the fact that they can kill people in numerous other ways. Shouldn't those types be locked up already?

What I really find hilarious about you and Frankie is that you think this mental database will actually work. What will happen is that mental patients will simply steal guns or use other tools to kill while normal people are denied firearm purchases due to a database error. That's what's been happening with NICS.

Quit relying on the government for your personal defense and rely on yourself.

There is MENTALLY INCOMPETENT but NOT FUNCTIONALLY INCOMPETENT. Same way you have many posters that knows people who ILLITERATE and FUNCTIONAL, and then those who are NOT FUNCTIONAL. Some work with many on a daily basis. They can build houses, fix cars, operate machinery, but put a manual in front of them or have them fill out a form, then they are in ALOT OF TROUBLE.

You've just described most of our government. Put the Bill of Rights in front of them or have them balance the budget, and they are in a lot of trouble.

And you want these people to decide whether you can have a firearm or not?

Anyway, I'd prefer it not to discuss this subject to you anymore. I think I've said all that needs to be said about the subject and yet you still want to support kneejerk responses. Next time anyone uses a gun to kill I'm sure you'll support another piece of gun control legislation even though the last bit you supported did absolutely no good at all.

You're giving up your freedoms for nothing.

[Lucky45]

Obviously you know very little about psychology. Like I said before, take a community college class on psychology and you'll see how it's a spectulative field. .............Medical field on the other hand, if you walk into a hospital with a hole in your head, you have a hole in your head, no disputing that. .......Now in the medical field, if somebody's bleeding out of a hole in his head, you just stop the bleeding and fix it.

Huh??? My head hurts with that one!

The medical field, on the other hand, has been around about as long as Humans have.

Really, ...is that a FACT??

Psychologists base their diagnosis on their PERCEPTIONS about a person. They can't just dig into a person's head and figure out what's wrong with them, UNLIKE medical doctors.

Really...is that a FACT?? So you are saying that the only way to diagnose an illness is by a doctor being INVASIVE into the human body. So I say, "Doc, I have a pain in my belly!" He can't figure out that I have 1. A cramp, 2. hunger, 3. TO GO, or 4. Ate Taco Cabana.

But if I say, "Doc, I see dead people!" He has to be invasive to diagnose me or he is using perceptions. OK!!

[

I think there is more lying below the surface and is pent up inside and should be studied. Nobody hates the government of the people by the people that much?

[TX Rancher]

Here's the problem.

Can someone tell me how you defend "guns for psychos" without sounding like one yourself?

At least in my case, I’m not advocating “guns for psychos�, I’m advocating defensive weapons for law abiding citizens as an individual right. Sounds different to me...

Nobody is talking about banning guns for people with minor problems, perhaps for which they were prescribed medication in the past.

But my concern is who gets to decide what “minor� is? The opportunity for abuse is high, in my opinion. Also, and this is the main concern for me, we're not looking at the root of the problem. The NICS database is not the issue in this particular case.

Cho was adjucated to be a danger to himself and that judgement happened to be CORRECT. Yet, he still passed the NICS check.

I can’t argue with that statement, that guy was definitely a couple of degrees off bubble, and he did pass the NICS check, and yes I wish he had been put away.

To me the root of the problem wasn’t that he was allowed access to firearms, it’s that he was out walking around in society. The system broke when it allowed him to retain his freedom and stay in society. Cho probably would have killed even without access to firearms. Yes the death toll may have been lower, but there still would have been a death toll, and it would have been eliminated by removing Cho from normal society.

In my opinion, this particular incident is not a case for further increasing the level of the background check for firearm transfers. Rather it’s a case for involuntary incarceration.

I have heard that the NRA is helping to draft the legislation. I for one have confidence they will do a good job, and that the bill will be one that even most Vermonters can support.

I’m not convinced. You may be right, the data’s not available to me yet.

I do support the NRA since I feel they are one of the best options I have for counter acting some of the anti groups, and I’m very glad folks like Chas are on committees and helping steer actions (I would feel better if he was involved in deciding actions on this one!). But I have not been in agreement with some of their actions in the past, so there’s no guarantee I will agree with their response to this issue. But since they are the best game in town at this time, I’ll stick with them…Much like I vote for Republicans…

The alternative would have been to come out in favor of "guns for raving lunatics". That would have caused many of the 4 million members to melt away, and our political support along with it.

Just imagine what would happen to our gun rights if something like THAT came about.

As I stated above, I am not advocating “guns for raving lunatics�. That’s a sound bite statement, a good one, but still a sound bite intended to force the opposing side to take a defensive stance. By the way, great tactical move…

In this particular case, I don’t think RKBA is the question though, it’s should Cho have been allowed free and uncontrolled access to society? If the answer was “yes�, then he had a right to self defense, and that included RKBA. If the answer was “no�, then he should have been confined.

In other words, if my goal was to avoid the loss of innocent life (a noble goal that I support, that's why I'm pro RKBA), extending the database to include Cho would have been marginally ineffective. It may have reduced the loss of life, but I don’t believe it would have eliminated it.

[frankie_the_yankee]

[quote="Geister"] What I really find hilarious about you and Frankie is that you think this mental database will actually work. What will happen is that mental patients will simply steal guns or use other tools to kill while normal people are denied firearm purchases due to a database error. That's what's been happening with NICS. [quote]

You don't quite get it, do you.

It's not that I think it will "work", if by work you mean to be totally effective.

What I think is:

1) Psychos SHOULDN'T have easy access to guns. In an ideal world, someone like Cho should not have been able to have simply walk into a store and bought a gun. In fact, people like that shouldn't (IDEALLY) have guns at all. I think we can all agree on that. At least I hope so.

2) Trying to defend "guns for psychos" is a MASSIVE POLITICAL LOSER.

You know that determined psychos will find a way to get guns anyway, just like determined criminals do. I know that determined psychos will find a way to get guns anyway, just like determined criminals do. But the % of the public who are capable of following that argument, or who are even interested enough to listen, is miniscule.

The idea of some sick puppy mass merderer being able to walk into a store and buy a gun is just off the charts to most people. And there is nothing you can say that will change their minds. Nothing.

If gun owners were vocal about defending guns for psychos, if the NRA went to the mat to prevent a bill intended to restrict access from passing, most people would think that WE WERE PSYCHOS ourselves. Our political support would disappear, and 2nd Amendment rights would be trashed.

3) So I agree with what the NRA is doing in trying to shape a bill that will take the extreme psychos out of the legal market (at least making it tougher for them to get guns) while not going so far as to DQ someone who was prescribed Vallium a few years ago for whatever reason. I think they will be successful.

Had any trouble buying ammo lately? Back in the 80's Kennedy tried to ban nearly all ammo with his idiotic "cop killer bullet" ban. The "purists" screamed, "No way!!!" Meanwhile, the NRA quietly got into the process, and crafted a bill that quieted the fools down while having almost no effect on gun owners.

And there has been no sign of a "slippery slope" in 20-odd years.

4) I fully agree that the gun banners will try to seize on any incident that happens in the future to create more catagories of prohibited persons.

"Interviews with people who knew him reveal that he frequently cheated at pitching baseball cards during recess at grade school. The question is: Why are people with that background allowed to buy guns?"

So we will have to build and strengthen our ranks as much as possible to fight off efforts like that down the road. The thing is, we won't do that defending guns for psychos. Instead, the gun rights movement will be reduced to about 20 people living in Idaho in little cabins built on top of big pointy rocks.

"Man, that squirrel jerky tastes almost as good as beef, don' it Gran'paw?"

5) I also agree that the best way to prevent more VT's is to get rid of the idiotic gun-free zones. And I can see some signs that this could actually happen. Exhibit A is Utah. I've also seen a number of Op Ed pieces lately advocating this. This would have been inconceivable 20 years ago. Now, as we celebrate 20 years of "Florida style" concealed carry, it IS conceivable.

That's huge progress.

But we could piddle it all away if we dig in our heels defending guns for psychos.

[frankie_the_yankee]

But my concern is who gets to decide what “minor� is? The opportunity for abuse is high, in my opinion. Also, and this is the main concern for me, we're not looking at the root of the problem. The NICS database is not the issue in this particular case.

That is a legitimate issue that concerns me as well. As usual, the devil is in the details. With the NRA involved, I think we will be OK.

Cho was adjucated to be a danger to himself and that judgement happened to be CORRECT. Yet, he still passed the NICS check.

I can’t argue with that statement, that guy was definitely a couple of degrees off bubble, and he did pass the NICS check, and yes I wish he had been put away.

To me the root of the problem wasn’t that he was allowed access to firearms, it’s that he was out walking around in society.

.............

In my opinion, this particular incident is not a case for further increasing the level of the background check for firearm transfers. Rather it’s a case for involuntary incarceration.

Sure. And I think that standards for putting disturbed people away will be re-examined in the aftermath of this, as well they should.

I have heard that the NRA is helping to draft the legislation. I for one have confidence they will do a good job, and that the bill will be one that even most Vermonters can support.

I’m not convinced. You may be right, the data’s not available to me yet.

Look at what they did shaping Kennedy's "cop killer bullet" ban back in the 80's.

The alternative would have been to come out in favor of "guns for raving lunatics". That would have caused many of the 4 million members to melt away, and our political support along with it.

Just imagine what would happen to our gun rights if something like THAT came about.

As I stated above, I am not advocating “guns for raving lunatics�. That’s a sound bite statement, a good one, but still a sound bite intended to force the opposing side to take a defensive stance. By the way, great tactical move…

You bet it is. That's why I am POSITIVE the antis would use it, or something very much like it. We would get beaten like a great big drum.

[Geister]

To me the root of the problem wasn’t that he was allowed access to firearms, it’s that he was out walking around in society. The system broke when it allowed him to retain his freedom and stay in society. Cho probably would have killed even without access to firearms. Yes the death toll may have been lower, but there still would have been a death toll, and it would have been eliminated by removing Cho from normal society.

In my opinion, this particular incident is not a case for further increasing the level of the background check for firearm transfers. Rather it’s a case for involuntary incarceration.

From what I've read on-line about Cho (and it could be wrong):

Cho was temporarily detained for a psychiatric assessment; he was never committed. I don't think everyone that is temporarily detained for a psychiatric assessment should be committed. Lots of people who suffer from mental illness are not violent towards others so we shouldn't assume that anyone who's a little off in the head acts like Cho.

No one really knew what exactly was going through his mind. I think he should have been locked up as well, but based on what I've read about him, there was not one specific incident prior to the massacre that would have gotten him locked up for a long while. We didn't know that he should have been locked up until AFTER he committed the killings.

He had a psychiatric assessment for a threat of suicide, not murder. Not even the psychiatrists who dealt with him really knew that he had violent thoughts towards others, and they focused on his depression and suicidal tendencies. You can't put disturbed people away for a long time if they haven't made any particular threats to people and I sure as hell don't think the government should start treating everyone with depression as a potential serial killer.

The only real effective thing we could have done is allow CHLers to carry on campus in Virginia.

There is absolutely no way the government can read the minds of individuals and know what their intent is for a firearm. That's all a mental background check attempts to do. Besides, Cho was not eligible for a Virginia CHL anyway, but that didn't stop him from carrying the guns on campus.

You don't quite get it, do you.

That's quite a bold thing for you to say when your own arguments have conflicted with each other.

Psychos SHOULDN'T have easy access to guns. In an ideal world, someone like Cho should not have been able to have simply walk into a store and bought a gun. In fact, people like that shouldn't (IDEALLY) have guns at all. I think we can all agree on that. At least I hope so.

And who defines what "psycho" is? Not even the psychiatrists who treated Cho really considered him to be a threat to others based on what's he did in the past, and that's all they could base their findings off of.

There wasn't anything in his mental background to give concrete evidence that he had an intent to kill. He got treated for suicide and depression, NOT for making violent death threats towards others. So a mental background check would NOT have done a bit a good in this situation anyway.

And if you are suggesting that ANYONE who gets treated for depression or in-patient/out-patient treatment should be denied a firearms purchase and treated like a serial killer, then you have no clue what you are talking about at all.

In an ideal world people like you would quit blaming the guns for the murders caused by individuals. Cho could have killed just as easily and as effectively with many other things besides a gun, yet you haven't asked for mental background checks on everything else.

Frankie, it sounds like you have no clue about mental health in general. You want to lock up psychopaths but don't offer any sort of defintion of what a psychopath really is or how to find out who is a psychopath. What's even funnier is that some of you, like yourself, want to make drastic changes to the law and make a new background check, which will become a massive PITA for EVERYONE, based on the actions of ONE person.

All this mental database will do is keep non-violent, law-abiding individuals from purchasing a gun due to being treated in the past for depression or whatever while doing NOTHING to stopping genuine psychopaths from KILLING. Psychopaths do NOT obey the law if they want to kill.

Instead of acting like a bunch of gun control advocates and suggesting the government needs to create more gun control, WHICH HAS YET TO WORK,
you all need to have an issue with the firearms bans across campii all over the country, which effectively PREVENTED someone from killing Cho before he murdered so many people.

In an ideal world Cho would have gotten SHOT AND KILLED before he managed to kill 32 people.

[Geister]

BTW, here's current Virginia law:

§ 18.2-308.1:2. Purchase, possession or transportation of firearm by persons adjudicated legally incompetent or mentally incapacitated; penalty.

It shall be unlawful for any person who has been adjudicated (i) legally incompetent pursuant to former § 37.1-128.02 or former § 37.1-134, (ii) mentally incapacitated pursuant to former § 37.1-128.1 or former § 37.1-132 or (iii) incapacitated pursuant to Chapter 10 (§ 37.2-1000 et seq.) of Title 37.2 and whose competency or capacity has not been restored pursuant to former § 37.1-134.1 or § 37.2-1012, to purchase, possess, or transport any firearm. A violation of this section shall be punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor.

(1994, c. 907; 1997, c. 921; 2004, c. 995.)

§ 18.2-308.1:3. Purchase, possession or transportation of firearm by persons involuntarily committed; penalty.

A. It shall be unlawful for any person involuntarily committed pursuant to Article 5 (§ 37.2-814 et seq.) of Chapter 8 of Title 37.2 to purchase, possess or transport a firearm during the period of such person's commitment. A violation of this subsection shall be punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor.

B. Any person prohibited from purchasing, possessing or transporting firearms under this section may, at any time following his release from commitment, petition the circuit court in the city or county in which he resides to restore his right to purchase, possess or transport a firearm. The court may, in its discretion and for good cause shown, grant the petition. The clerk shall certify and forward forthwith to the Central Criminal Records Exchange, on a form provided by the Exchange, a copy of any such order.

So how do you propose re-examined the standards as they are now? By making sure everyone who suffers from depression is involuntarily committed?

[Lucky45]

What's even funnier is that some of you, like yourself, want to make drastic changes to the law and make a new background check, which will become a massive PITA for EVERYONE, based on the actions of ONE person.
All this mental database will do is keep non-violent, law-abiding individuals from purchasing a gun due to being treated in the past for depression or whatever while doing NOTHING to stopping genuine psychopaths from KILLING. Psychopaths do NOT obey the law if they want to kill.

Why do you keep saying someone is trying to CREATE A NEW DATABASE? Read this info taken straight from the FBI website. http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics/ops_re ... rt2005.htm

Through a cooperative effort with agencies such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and the Department of Justice (DOJ), in addition to local and state law enforcement agencies, the FBI developed the NICS, which became operational on November 30, 1998. The NICS was designed to immediately respond to background check inquiries for prospective firearm transferees. For an FFL to initiate a NICS background check, the prospective firearm transferee must complete and sign an ATF Form 4473 which collects the prospective firearm transferee's descriptive data and asks questions intended to capture information that may immediately indicate to an FFL that the subject is a prohibited person, thereby negating the need to continue the background check process. Pursuant to federal law, a prospective transferee is required to present proof of identity via a form of government-issued photo identification to an FFL prior to the FFL’s submission of subject descriptive data to the NICS. When an FFL initiates a NICS background check, a name and descriptor search is conducted to identify any matching records in three nationally held databases.

These databases are:

Interstate Identification Index (III): The III contains an expansive number of criminal history records. The III records searched by the NICS during a background check, as of December 31, 2005, numbered over 46,087,000.

National Crime Information Center (NCIC) : The NCIC contains information on protection orders, wanted persons, and others. The NCIC records searched by the NICS during a background check, as of December 31, 2005, numbered over 3,238,000.

NICS Index : The NICS Index2 contains records contributed by local, state, and federal agencies pertaining to individuals federally prohibited the transfer of a firearm. The records maintained in the NICS Index, as of December 31, 2005, numbered over 3,960,000.

Also, a fourth search, via the applicable databases of the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), may be required pursuant to federal law. In response to a mandate issued by the U.S. Attorney General in February 2002, a search of the ICE databases is conducted on all non-U.S. citizens attempting to receive firearms in the United States. In 2005, the FBI Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division’s NICS Section and its Point-of-Contact (POC) state counterparts requested over 30,600 such queries of the ICE. The 2005 number of Immigration Alien Queries (IAQ) requests represents an approximate 11 percent increase from the number requested in 2004.


NICS Index
Pursuant to 28 C.F.R., Part 25, the NICS Index database was created specifically for use by the NICS and contains records that are not maintained in either the III or the NCIC database, obtained from local, state, and federal agencies pertaining to persons federally prohibited from receiving firearms. All records in the NICS Index will immediately prohibit the individual record holder from the transfer of a firearm.

Records are entered into the NICS Index and maintained via one of several specific and distinctly outlined files. The Federal Register (Volume 62, No. 124) identifies the various types of entries by specific categories. The categories within the NICS Index are outlined as follows:

Denied Persons: Persons who are federally disqualified when a record is not already included in the NCIC or the III.14

Illegal/Unlawful Aliens: Persons who are aliens and are illegally or unlawfully in the United States.

Controlled Substance Abusers: Persons who are unlawful users of or addicted to any controlled substance.

Dishonorable Discharges: Persons who have been discharged from the armed forces under dishonorable conditions.

Citizenship Renunciants: Persons who have renounced their U.S. citizenship.

Mental Defectives/Commitments: Persons who have been adjudicated as a mental defective or have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution or have been deemed incompetent to handle their own affairs. To increase the quantity of available records for inclusion in the NICS Index, the NICS Section initiated an outreach program15 to connect with the law enforcement and judicial community, various state and federal agencies, and the general public and to boost awareness of the availability and benefits of the NICS Index.

The NICS Index is a valuable tool in providing immediate accessibility to federally prohibitive records (e.g., disqualifying mental health records) previously unavailable at the national level. The submission of disqualifying records by state agencies has proven to have a positive impact to public safety by providing information accessible to all users when performing NICS background checks. Without this information being readily available, prohibited persons may be successful in their attempts to receive firearms merely by crossing state lines.

As of December 31, 2005, the total Active Records for Mental Defective in NICS Index is 234,628
The following story is an example of how the unavailability of prohibiting records at the national level can lead to tragic results:

A 44-year-old man was charged with the murder of his 32-year-old ex-girlfriend, shot to death at her place of employment. Reportedly, the alleged gunman walked into the business via the back door and fired several shots with a handgun. The alleged gunman’s attorney acknowledged that his client committed the crime but emphasized his prior history of mental illness. The alleged gunman was institutionalized and treated for depression and other mental health illnesses as early as age 12 and also had a history of substance abuse. None of the mental health records were in the NICS Index for accessibility during the background check process.

Had the records explicating the aforementioned individual's prior mental health history been made available via the NICS Index, the aforementioned tragedy may not have occurred. As with every other facet of program operations, the NICS Section remains proactive in seeking vital record information necessary to effectively facilitate the nation's firearms (and firearms/explosives permits) background check program. As of December 31, 2005, approximately 24 states were submitting or had contributed records to the NICS Index (some on a limited basis) and the NICS Section was in contact with several states to solicit vital record information for the NICS Index.

By obtaining and availing decision-making information (especially records not accessible through the NCIC or the III databases) to the users of the NICS, all states will have access to valuable prohibiting records when performing a NICS background check. Figure 14 reflects the number of active records in the NICS Index per category, as of December 31, 2005.

[frankie_the_yankee]

The only real effective thing we could have done is allow CHLers to carry on campus in Virginia.

Refer to this quote from my last post.

"5) I also agree that the best way to prevent more VT's is to get rid of the idiotic gun-free zones. And I can see some signs that this could actually happen. Exhibit A is Utah. I've also seen a number of Op Ed pieces lately advocating this. This would have been inconceivable 20 years ago. Now, as we celebrate 20 years of "Florida style" concealed carry, it IS conceivable.

That's huge progress."

Sound like an area where we may agree?

You don't quite get it, do you.

That's quite a bold thing for you to say when your own arguments have conflicted with each other.

Obviously, in addition to possibly being "bold", it's also an ACCURATE thing for me to say.

What I am saying is that linking the EXISTING (as Lucky pointed out) nutball database more effectively into the NICS system will NOT guarantee that another nutball will not get a gun and go on a mass murder spree, though it MAY make it more difficult.

But OPPOSING the effort to better link these databases will SLAUGHTER US POLITICALLY and lead to a roll back of many of the hard fought gains of the last 20 years.

Right now, gun rights is a winning issue in national politics, just as gun control is radioactive, especially for Democrats. The only reason why Democrats won the Congress last year is because they elected senators and representatives in red states - and these candidates ran on pro gun-rights platforms. Many of them won by very narrow margins. If they had favored gun control, they would have lost.

And they know it.

But if we take a "guns for psychos" position, and that WILL be the sound bite, the cause of gun rights will take a beating. Pro gun control candidates will get elected. And gun rights will be in big trouble.

THAT'S the "it" that you don't seem to be getting.

And who defines what "psycho" is? Not even the psychiatrists who treated Cho really considered him to be a threat to others based on what's he did in the past, and that's all they could base their findings off of.

The definitions already in the law that Lucky cited seem pretty reasonable. I think that with the NRA having a seat on the table, we will be OK.

They may well not have stopped Cho, but so what? If we can get rid of the stupid gun free zones, people will be able to stop the Cho's of the world THEMSELVES. And the knowledge of that may well lead the Cho's of the world to realize that getting a gun WILL NOT enable them to savor the power trip of having dozens of people beg for their lives.

So they may well not even attempt mass murder sprees like this at all.

But if we defend "guns for psychos", we will NEVER get rid of the gun free zones. Instead, it will lead to further misguided efforts to expand them.

And if you are suggesting that ANYONE who gets treated for depression or in-patient/out-patient treatment should be denied a firearms purchase and treated like a serial killer, then you have no clue what you are talking about at all.

Check through all of my posts. See if you can find any place where I suggested this, or anything like it.

You won't find it.

In an ideal world people like you would quit blaming the guns for the murders caused by individuals. Cho could have killed just as easily and as effectively with many other things besides a gun, yet you haven't asked for mental background checks on everything else.

What do you mean, "people like you"? Who's blaming guns for murders? I think most of the blame lies with "gun free zones", and I have said as much.

Are you saying this because I happen to think there is a place in the world for secured "sterile" areas? If so, I'd like to see you get on a plane with 250 people named "Muhammed al Jihadi" who were all armed to the teeth.

Feel free to bring your gun. I'm rooting for you.

All this mental database will do is keep non-violent, law-abiding individuals from purchasing a gun due to being treated in the past for depression or whatever while doing NOTHING to stopping genuine psychopaths from KILLING.

Is that what it does NOW? Because as Lucky has showed, the database exists and is SUPPOSED to be linked into NICS.

In an ideal world Cho would have gotten SHOT AND KILLED before he managed to kill 32 people.

I agree. But since we don't live in an ideal world, we need to preserve and enhance our gun rights to be able to do that.

Beating the drum to protect gun rights for psychos will not help that cause.

[tomneal]

Beating the drum to protect gun rights for psychos will not help that cause.

I am not really beating the drum for psycho's but...

I am concerned that the definition of psycho will change over time, to include what you and I consider 'normal' behavior today


We already have 20,000 gun laws.
Will 20,001 make it safe?

[frankie_the_yankee]

I am not really beating the drum for psycho's but...

I am concerned that the definition of psycho will change over time, to include what you and I consider 'normal' behavior today


We already have 20,000 gun laws.
Will 20,001 make it safe?

OK, you're NOT really pushing for "guns for psychos".

But that's how we will BE PORTRAYED. It makes too good a bumper sticker to pass up. The truth is a bit too "nuanced" for most non-gun owners to comprehend.

I share your concerns over "definition creep". That's why I think it will take all the political power we can muster to defend our rights. And getting tarred with a "guns for psychos" label will make a lot of that power melt away.

Utah is setting a good example. Let people begin to see that gun-free zones are an idiotic myth, and the tide will be running in our direction.

[DaveT]

This thread has gone back and forth so much, my head hurts.

What I would like to focus on for a moment is all the troops returning from Iraq, now and in the future. The VA predicts that 6 out of every 10 soldiers will have some type of PTSD related problems. An actual VA counselor that I met and talked with recently told me that she felt the numbers are more like 8 out of every 10. Her caseload is astonishing, and there are not enough counselors to handle the load. Troops often wait 3 months for an initial appointment after being referred.

VA problems aside, if these troops go to a counselor for PTSD problems, will their name be entered in a database somewhere that would stop them from obtaining a CHL ?

Will it be limited to troops actually committed as an inpatient for PTSD problems, or will it affect everyone who is seen for PTSD problems ?

Will military or VA records be open for public scruitiny ?

If it affects all troops who are referred to a counselor for PTSD problems, I think we are just slapping the troops in the face with restrictions like this. Kinda like saying "Thanks for your service, but oh by the way.... we are taking away your right to legally defend yourself or your family."

Seems to me that this whole mental health issue is a mighty slippery slope to be traveling down..............

[frankie_the_yankee]

This thread has gone back and forth so much, my head hurts.

What I would like to focus on for a moment is all the troops returning from Iraq, now and in the future. The VA predicts that 6 out of every 10 soldiers will have some type of PTSD related problems. An actual VA counselor that I met and talked with recently told me that she felt the numbers are more like 8 out of every 10. Her caseload is astonishing, and there are not enough counselors to handle the load. Troops often wait 3 months for an initial appointment after being referred.

VA problems aside, if these troops go to a counselor for PTSD problems, will their name be entered in a database somewhere that would stop them from obtaining a CHL ?

Will it be limited to troops actually committed as an inpatient for PTSD problems, or will it affect everyone who is seen for PTSD problems ?

Will military or VA records be open for public scruitiny ?

If it affects all troops who are referred to a counselor for PTSD problems, I think we are just slapping the troops in the face with restrictions like this. Kinda like saying "Thanks for your service, but oh by the way.... we are taking away your right to legally defend yourself or your family."

Seems to me that this whole mental health issue is a mighty slippery slope to be traveling down..............

From everything I have read so far, unless they are adjudicated as mentally incompetent or INVOLUNTARILY committed to a mental institution, their CHL rights will not be affected.

"Being referred to a counselor" does not meet the standard, nor should it.

If such a standard was proposed, I would oppose it, as would many, many others, for just the reasons you set forth.

[Lucky45]

VA problems aside, if these troops go to a counselor for PTSD problems, will their name be entered in a database somewhere that would stop them from obtaining a CHL ?
Will it be limited to troops actually committed as an inpatient for PTSD problems, or will it affect everyone who is seen for PTSD problems ?

i guess only where it meets the legal requirement to be entered in the first place. Then you can legally file a petition to have to rights to purchase reinstated.

Will military or VA records be open for public scruitiny ?

I don't think any record is open to the public.

If it affects all troops who are referred to a counselor for PTSD problems, I think we are just slapping the troops in the face with restrictions like this. Kinda like saying "Thanks for your service, but oh by the way.... we are taking away your right to legally defend yourself or your family."

What about those that have a dishonorable discharge? That was news to me when I read it, if an officer in the services has a trist with a subordinate and gets discharged, then he can't own a gun. Isn't that wild??

[TX Rancher]

To me the root of the problem wasn’t that he was allowed access to firearms, it’s that he was out walking around in society. The system broke when it allowed him to retain his freedom and stay in society. Cho probably would have killed even without access to firearms. Yes the death toll may have been lower, but there still would have been a death toll, and it would have been eliminated by removing Cho from normal society.

In my opinion, this particular incident is not a case for further increasing the level of the background check for firearm transfers. Rather it’s a case for involuntary incarceration.

From what I've read on-line about Cho (and it could be wrong):

Cho was temporarily detained for a psychiatric assessment; he was never committed. I don't think everyone that is temporarily detained for a psychiatric assessment should be committed. Lots of people who suffer from mental illness are not violent towards others so we shouldn't assume that anyone who's a little off in the head acts like Cho.

I never said everyone that is temporarily detained should be committed…

No one really knew what exactly was going through his mind. I think he should have been locked up as well, but based on what I've read about him, there was not one specific incident prior to the massacre that would have gotten him locked up for a long while. We didn't know that he should have been locked up until AFTER he committed the killings.

I completely agree…

He had a psychiatric assessment for a threat of suicide, not murder. Not even the psychiatrists who dealt with him really knew that he had violent thoughts towards others, and they focused on his depression and suicidal tendencies.

Ok, so again we agree, he fell through the system…a deranged, homicidal individual was “released� into society.

I believe any system that guards individual freedoms is going to let a few folks like Cho slip through the cracks. That’s the downside to protecting individual rights, but it’s a downside I can accept since I feel the greater good is served.

The point of my post was, and still is, if your goal was to avoid the slaughter, removing Cho's free access to society was the only option, and for that reason the discussion of his access to firearms was not applicable…his open access to society was.

The only real effective thing we could have done is allow CHLers to carry on campus in Virginia.

Now if your discussion is how to limit his impact to society, then I agree having concealed carry on campus may have improved the situation, if a CHL had been there, and had the mindset to pull the trigger, but I doubt it would have saved all the victims that day, and yes I believe a lower death toll would have been a better outcome…And of course I'm for concealed carry on campus (and everywhere else).