Gun control discussions in the wake of the Newtown, CT deaths

[kingricefan]

My guess is that it would be health professionals who would be doing the diagnosing/labeling regarding a person's mental health, not the federal government. I don't know how it works in other states but currently in order to apply for a concealed weapons permit in Maine, the applicant has to sign to a release to allow the State Police Weapons Division to request records for in-patient mental health stays. They do not have the authority to dig deeper but I suppose that could change even at the state level.

Yes, but how does one get the mentally unstable person into a mental health professional's office so that said professional can diagnose the mentally unstable person? There are alot of unstable folks out there who think that they are perfectly normal and don't need to see a professional for help. Those are the folks that scare me.........just saying.

[Todash]

Not if they're a class full of stunned and shocked little kids.

There are adults in schools too. I'm not saying no one would get hurt, but look at China (which for some odd reason has a mass stabbing thing going on). The same day as the Newtown incident, someone in China stabbed an elderly woman and then went to a school and stabbed 20+ children. I mean, obviously that's bad. It's horrible. But no one died. Guns are lethal. Again, if guns are not more lethal than other weapons, why insist that we need them for protection? Why not ... simply use a crowbar?

[hossenpepper]

The fundamental debate of the US: is a freedom that creates a lack of said freedom for others, or worse, creates a harm to others, worth defending and/or having in the first place.

I suppose I could carry on, fighting the Milton Friedmans of the world and their justifications of liberties regardless of the price to others, but what we be the point?

In the end, the curse of being American in this day and age is you have to realize that your desires build as many dams in Patagonia as the next guy. We are all guilty and innocent. Neither party is really your friend. What sense does it make that a place as diverse as the US could be represented properly by 2 basic viewpoints? None if you give it any honest thought. Equally as fallacious is the idea that by rejecting both you are therefore some unique beast among the herd and have some esoteric truth the rest are too foolish to see. Conservatives only protect what they want to protect. If their moralistic stand was such, then they would protect all viewpoints, not just the ones that serve their personal belief system. Thinking in terms of equality is a far more difficult thing than to constantly espouse the status quo. Ask the any extinct species how failure to evolve and adapt worked for them.

Again, gun crimes are committed with guns. Illegal guns were once legal guns and the more legal guns there are, the more illegal guns there will be. Comparing the idea that if there were none, crimes would just be committed in another fashion is dumb. Guns are far more destructive than any other weapon (besides large scale military stuff, which is essentially giant forms of a gun). If you don't think so, then ask yourself how the mighty 300 from Sparta would fare against one armed Hummer with a little distance and enough bullets. If they weren't more deadly on a mass scale, why did armies move to them over swords, etc.?

In the end this debate is pointless. Americans are violent and taught to compete and see the world as hostile from birth. Guns are here and not going anywhere. Stupidity is too. No laws can really work well enough to stop stupid violent people from being stupid and violent. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try, but you can't fix stupid.

[Moderator]

Yes, but how does one get the mentally unstable person into a mental health professional's office so that said professional can diagnose the mentally unstable person? There are alot of unstable folks out there who think that they are perfectly normal and don't need to see a professional for help. Those are the folks that scare me.........just saying.

Absolutely, there's no 100% guaranteed way of ensuring this will prevent future incidents but it could at least weed out those that are known to have had issues severe enough that they were a danger to themselves or others which is one of many reasons for in-patient mental health care.

[shipwreked]

My guess is that it would be health professionals who would be doing the diagnosing/labeling regarding a person's mental health, not the federal government. I don't know how it works in other states but currently in order to apply for a concealed weapons permit in Maine, the applicant has to sign to a release to allow the State Police Weapons Division to request records for in-patient mental health stays. They do not have the authority to dig deeper but I suppose that could change even at the state level.

Here in PA, they have the same health restrictions for a concealed carry permit and you must provide two character references who live in the same county and are not related in any way (which they do contact and question.) Kids must take a 8-10 hour gun safety course with a written test before they can get a hunting license. Actually I think adults have to as well. I did but don't recall if it was a requirement.

I don't dissagree that this would be a good thing to do for anyone trying to buy a gun.

[exzel]

Perhaps. We certainly wouldn't want someone with a hair trigger shooting their mouth off.

I read the piece this morning but I'm a bit biased because of past experience with how things are twisted by conservative sites and pundits to think this will be any different in how it's received.

How do you seem to always come back with ones even better, and so quickly? Dang you’re good.

And regarding SK’s piece… no matter what, it should get pretty interesting around here and on the pundit’s trail. Do you usually get a lot of requests for information from news sources whenever he comes out with his politically charged musings?

[Todash]

Absolutely, there's no 100% guaranteed way of ensuring this will prevent future incidents but it could at least weed out those that are known to have had issues severe enough that they were a danger to themselves or others which is one of many reasons for in-patient mental health care.

Something we should probably clarify is that there is no way to completely prevent the "bad" shootings (homicide, suicide, accidental). It's statistics we need to aim for. Not smoking does not guarantee you won't get lung cancer, but it sure as heck tips the odds in your favor.

[shipwreked]

Why not ... simply use a crowbar?

It would be unfortunate to bring a crowbar to a gun fight.

I would not argue that guns are equally lethal. They are ranged weapons and reload automatically. My point is that eliminating guns from society does not eliminate the problem of psycopaths succeeding in killing dozens of people in a very short amount of time, which is the problem. Not law abiding citizens owning guns, which is what the administration is currently focused on.

[Moderator]

Do you usually get a lot of requests for information from news sources whenever he comes out with his politically charged musings?

Yes, but I was thinking more in terms of the comments that are generated when those same sources stir up people who do not bother to do their due diligence to get the original information instead of blindly buying into the (mis)information they were spoon-fed and then come here to express their displeasure.

[Amphiaraus]

Absolutely, there's no 100% guaranteed way of ensuring this will prevent future incidents but it could at least weed out those that are known to have had issues severe enough that they were a danger to themselves or others which is one of many reasons for in-patient mental health care.

I'd just like to toss Paul Applebaum's comments on this issue into the ring...

(But, first, who is Paul Applebaum? He is the Dollard Professor of Psychiatry, Medicine and Law at Columbia University and the former head of the American Psychiatric Association (APA). He's also testified recently on behalf of the APA at Vice President Joe Biden's recent task force on gun violence.)

According to Applebaum, less than 4% of all crime is committed by persons with diagnosable mental illnesses (and the FBI's statistical Uniform Crime Report supports Applebaum's claims). Of those crimes actually committed, Applebaum is careful to point out, the majority of harm is inflicted upon themselves. Furthermore, Applebaum has pointed out the National Rifleman's Association has been very good at deflecting the issues of gun ownership and gun-related violence unto issues pertaining to mental illness. Consequently, even if a comprehensive program were implemented and was 100% successful in identifing potentially dangerous gun owers, the best outcome would be a fraction of a percentage decrease in actual gun-related crime and deaths brought about by guns.

The fact is, no one has the ability to predict "dangerousness" quotients in any population, clinical or "normal", but the weapons effect (that is, a behavioral tendency that's brought on by the mere presence, descriptor, or visual representation of a weapon that may lead to an increased probability of aggressive behavior) appears to be present, in one form or another, across all populations... including, oddly enough, Catholic nuns.

I think everyone will agree that there are no easy answers to this issue, but personally I continue to hope common sense will prevail.