Mental health and gun laws.

[kgbsquirrel]

They'll put as much thought and care into adding names to the mental health "No Gun List" as they do adding names to the "No Fly List."

Errrrrrr, uhhhhhhh...... FML.

Washington, DC – Congressman Jim Moran, Northern Virginia Democrat, reintroduced the “NRA Members’ Gun Safety Act” (H.R. 21) in the 113th Congress. The legislation would implement five commonsense gun safety reforms that polling shows are supported by at least 63 percent of NRA members.

“The “NRA Members’ Gun Safety Act” (H.R. 21) goes after commonsense, popular, publicly polled, non-controversial gun safety measures that a majority of NRA members support, yet are opposed by the leadership at the NRA,” said Rep. Moran. “The NRA is working to block gun safety reforms, regardless of merit, and despite the schism between the group and their membership. In the wake of the most recent tragedy, enough is enough. It’s time to take steps to better protect the public in ways that do not infringe on the 2nd Amendment.”

Specifically, the popular provisions in the legislation would:

• Require background checks for every gun purchase (74% NRA member support);
• Require background checks on gun shop employees (79% NRA member support);
• Prohibit individuals on the terrorist watch list from purchasing firearms (71% NRA member support);
• Require gun owners to report to police when their guns are lost or stolen (64% NRA member supports); and
• Establish minimum standards for concealed carry permits (63-75% NRA member support for each standard)

Moran continued: “As the first bill I introduced this Congress, H.R. 21 represents one of my top priorities – taking commonsense steps to prevent future gun-related deaths.”

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d113:21:./list/bss/d113HR.lst::

[MicroBalrog]

This will last about as long as it takes the NRA to put articles in American Rifleman about how the List works.

[SteveS]

I was hoping that some of those who have concerns about being disqualified for mental health reasons would comment on this, and maybe tell us what would or would not be acceptable, from their point of view.



There is a noticeable amount of suspicion toward psychology/psychiatry among American Christians. But then there is James Dobson, who made his reputation as a child psychologist.

I don't see this. I do know some Christians that are distrustful, but that has more to do with their belief that mental problems are a consequence of sinful behavior and a punishment. I spent 12 years (or so) working in the mental health field and never received and kind of instruction that was designed to convince me that religious belief was bad or the result of some kind of delusion. I am sure there are some practitioners that do believe that, but it is not a requirement of the profession.

[SteveS]

As for what I think, I don't believe the federal prohibition should be expanded. If anything, it should be scaled back to allow people to challenge their inclusion on the list. It should not be a lifetime prohibition.

[kgbsquirrel]

As for what I think, I don't believe the federal prohibition should be expanded. If anything, it should be scaled back to allow people to challenge their inclusion on the list. It should not be a lifetime prohibition.

But it isn't a lifetime prohibition, you can appeal it! (It's just that Congress has kept that appeals process defunded for the last 20 years.)

[ArfinGreebly]

I don't see this. I do know some Christians that are distrustful, but that has more to do with their belief that mental problems are a consequence of sinful behavior and a punishment. I spent 12 years (or so) working in the mental health field and never received and kind of instruction that was designed to convince me that religious belief was bad or the result of some kind of delusion. I am sure there are some practitioners that do believe that, but it is not a requirement of the profession.

One wonders then, if psychology is . . . what -- tolerant? -- of religion, to what degree does psychology accept the underpinning of religion -- the human soul or spirit -- as a component of thinking and emotion?

I'm not even interested, really, in psychology's "interpretation" of God/god/gods, I'm much more interested in whether psychology understands that the essence of the human condition is non-physical -- is in fact spiritual -- and that they integrate that knowledge into their theory & practice.

If the technology factors in the human spirit, then it has a chance.  If the idea of the human spirit is merely "tolerated" as a harmless illusion or delusion (or simply irrelevant), and the technology itself has no reflection of that aspect of the human condition, then all we have is lip service and jaw flapping, with the usual dismissive "well, it's fine if you want to believe that, it's no problem at all, you're welcome to your religion, whatever it is."

I have no use for, nor respect for, nor any trust of any "mental technology" that does not incorporate and integrate the human spirit into its theory and practice.

And why should I?

If I know that I am a spiritual being, and I know that some practitioner is willing to disregard that as unimportant in his formulation of counseling and remedies, why would I even bother consulting him?

He doesn't even think I exist.  Screw that.

[red headed stranger]

I understand your concern !

I had my knee looked, after the normal question......... Are you upset , do you feel like hurting someone or you're self ,do you drinking a lot , and do thing you have PTSD.

No Doc i'm fine. Can you look at my knee now.

These kinds of things bother me too.  In the well baby visits for both of my sons, they have always asked the question "are there guns in the home?"  My wife and I always answer no.  There was one Dr. that I could tell didn't believe it, (I think it was because he saw that my oldest was born at a military hospital) and still gave us a lecture about safes and such. Then, without comment, handed us brochures about other things such as vaccines and swimming pools.   

Also, apparently during pregnancies, it is SOP to ask questions that basically ask a dozen different ways if there is domestic abuse going on.  My wife told me it always made her very uncomfortable, because she was afraid that she might answer "incorrectly" and set off some kind of inquisition.   

These kinds of dynamics in Dr. offices give me pause when the "tightening up the NICS system" topic comes up. 

[SteveS]

One wonders then, if psychology is . . . what -- tolerant? -- of religion, to what degree does psychology accept the underpinning of religion -- the human soul or spirit -- as a component of thinking and emotion?

I'm not even interested, really, in psychology's "interpretation" of God/god/gods, I'm much more interested in whether psychology understands that the essence of the human condition is non-physical -- is in fact spiritual -- and that they integrate that knowledge into their theory & practice.

If the technology factors in the human spirit, then it has a chance.  If the idea of the human spirit is merely "tolerated" as a harmless illusion or delusion (or simply irrelevant), and the technology itself has no reflection of that aspect of the human condition, then all we have is lip service and jaw flapping, with the usual dismissive "well, it's fine if you want to believe that, it's no problem at all, you're welcome to your religion, whatever it is."

I have no use for, nor respect for, nor any trust of any "mental technology" that does not incorporate and integrate the human spirit into its theory and practice.

And why should I?

If I know that I am a spiritual being, and I know that some practitioner is willing to disregard that as unimportant in his formulation of counseling and remedies, why would I even bother consulting him?

He doesn't even think I exist.  Screw that.

I agree and wouldn't go to someone that took a tolerance view. As for Christian counselors, there are many organizations.  Our church is planning on doing some trainings from this group, starting this summer:

http://www.ccef.org/

[birdman]

Considering that many in the mainstream, particularly "educated" professionals (like shrinks) see being a firearms enthusiast (let alone a prepared person) as 'crazy'....this is very bad.

[Jamisjockey]

These kinds of things bother me too.  In the well baby visits for both of my sons, they have always asked the question "are there guns in the home?"  My wife and I always answer no.  There was one Dr. that I could tell didn't believe it, (I think it was because he saw that my oldest was born at a military hospital) and still gave us a lecture about safes and such. Then, without comment, handed us brochures about other things such as vaccines and swimming pools.   

Also, apparently during pregnancies, it is SOP to ask questions that basically ask a dozen different ways if there is domestic abuse going on.  My wife told me it always made her very uncomfortable, because she was afraid that she might answer "incorrectly" and set off some kind of inquisition.   

These kinds of dynamics in Dr. offices give me pause when the "tightening up the NICS system" topic comes up. 

Our ped in VA used to ask that question.....so I open carried to thier office once.  I got a lot of  looks. And they asked that question during the visit anyways.  Answer....."I'm not answering those questions" 
Here in Texas, we're on our second pediatrician, and neither asked any of those *expletive deleted*ed up AMA questions.

[Marnoot]

Our doctor (pediatrician+internal medicine) is not a member of the AMA, which is one of the criteria we used in choosing him. As a result, we've never had any of those crummy AMA questions asked.

[Perd Hapley]

Each state's laws vary.

Are there any states that have a good approach to this issue? If not, what do you think is the right way for govt. to deal with mental health and guns? Or should they just stay out of it?

[Balog]

Are there any states that have a good approach to this issue? If not, what do you think is the right way for govt. to deal with mental health and guns? Or should they just stay out of it?

If someone is not mentally competent to own guns, they probably shouldn't be allowed to walk the streets. So if someone is so crazy and dangerous that they have been adjudicated by a court of law (including zealous representation on their side) to be such a danger to themselves and others as to require involuntary treatment and/or confinement then yeah they probably hsouldn't be allowed to buy guns from a dealer.

[Tallpine]

If a free adult can't be trusted with a firearm, then he can't be trusted with a knife/car/shoe/phone/internet/anything, and therefore he can't be trusted to be free.

Amen, brother 

[SteveS]

These kinds of things bother me too.  In the well baby visits for both of my sons, they have always asked the question "are there guns in the home?"  My wife and I always answer no.  There was one Dr. that I could tell didn't believe it, (I think it was because he saw that my oldest was born at a military hospital) and still gave us a lecture about safes and such. Then, without comment, handed us brochures about other things such as vaccines and swimming pools.   

Also, apparently during pregnancies, it is SOP to ask questions that basically ask a dozen different ways if there is domestic abuse going on.  My wife told me it always made her very uncomfortable, because she was afraid that she might answer "incorrectly" and set off some kind of inquisition.   

These kinds of dynamics in Dr. offices give me pause when the "tightening up the NICS system" topic comes up. 

Well, you can thank Obamacare for one thing.  There is a provision, Senate amendment 3276, Sec. 2716, part c, that prevents the government from collecting any information related to the lawful ownership of firearms.  I suppose doctors can still ask, but they can't turn the info over to any government agency or entity.

[zahc]

Of all of the spree killings in recent history were there any of the perpetrators that hadn't displayed "red flags" that should have set in motion preventative measures?

The problem is, these supposed 'red flags' are displayed by people all the time. The fact that they are seen as 'red flags' is usually just hindsight and confirmation bias. People get angry, depressed, say mean things, perform strange behaviors and otherwise do things that would look like 'red flags' but then DON'T go on killing sprees millions of times per day.

[Tallpine]

The problem is, these supposed 'red flags' are displayed by people all the time. The fact that they are seen as 'red flags' is usually just hindsight and confirmation bias. People get angry, depressed, say mean things, perform strange behaviors and otherwise do things that would look like 'red flags' but then DON'T go on killing sprees millions of times per day.

Okay, who are you and why have you been watching me 

[MillCreek]

Okay, who are you and why have you been watching me 

Paranoia and the belief that you are being watched is a red flag, you know. 

[Tallpine]

Paranoia and the belief that you are being watched is a red flag, you know. 

But how did he know that I was angry, depressed, and saying mean things?   

[MillCreek]

But how did he know that I was angry, depressed, and saying mean things?   

I think we can all agree that anyone who knows you can reasonably guess this. 

[Tallpine]

I think we can all agree that anyone who knows you can reasonably guess this. 

Sometimes I say things that have more than one meaning.

[Harold Tuttle]

[Perd Hapley]

If someone is not mentally competent to own guns, they probably shouldn't be allowed to walk the streets. So if someone is so crazy and dangerous that they have been adjudicated by a court of law (including zealous representation on their side) to be such a danger to themselves and others as to require involuntary treatment and/or confinement then yeah they probably hsouldn't be allowed to buy guns from a dealer.

Thanks. That's the kind of info I was asking for.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

If someone is not mentally competent to own guns, they probably shouldn't be allowed to walk the streets.


significant break with reality here.
funny .... almost   
ironic

[Perd Hapley]

In what way?