The Liberal Gun Club Forum

http://www.npr.org/2012/08/15/158758286 ... gun-access

I'm taking the Fifth..

Thanks for this. I've often wondered how well NICS checks work in regards to mental illness. Not very apparently in some states. We may not like to admit it, but background checks are a good thing and probably need to be tightened up.

Thanks that was great, wish it was longer. I've often wondered about where lines would or should be drawn for the mentally ill since there is such a wide range.

Bisbee wrote:http://www.npr.org/2012/08/15/158758286 ... gun-access
I'm taking the Fifth..

Another professional and fair piece by NPR. Although I wish there was a more reasonable voice for gun control than Dennis Henigan. Sick of that guy.

NPR is one of the only media outlets that has gun-related stories and that don't wallow in extremes and talk show hosts lead impartial discussions (with a couple of exceptions).

Thanks for the link.

Thanks that was great, wish it was longer. I've often wondered about where lines would or should be drawn for the mentally ill since there is such a wide range.

That was my main takeaway from this story. Something more obviously needs to be done, but how do you identify the potentially violent, mentally ill that are not in the system and protect the rights of those that have a history of involuntary commitment but are not a risk to society?

begemot wrote:

Bisbee wrote:That was my main takeaway from this story. Something more obviously needs to be done, but how do you identify the potentially violent, mentally ill that are not in the system and protect the rights of those that have a history of involuntary commitment but are not a risk to society?

IMO, it boils down to having some kind of universal health care system in place that treats mental health just as seriously as it would physical well being.

Bisbee wrote:http://www.npr.org/2012/08/15/158758286 ... gun-access

I'm taking the Fifth..

I'll take a fifth as well

I suspected that there wasn't any central database, I can also see a patients vs public rights battle on that one. Our system of state mental health hospitals in California was dismantled years ago, we have just a few for the criminally insane. Overworked and under funded county mental health services were expected to pick up services but often these clients end up in jail, the LA County Jails are the largest unofficial state hospital in California.


On August 8th, NPR's Talk of the Nation had a segment called "Guns 101: What We Know And What We Don't". They got flooded with so many calls and e-mails that they promised a more extensive program in the near future.
http://www.npr.org/2012/08/08/158433081 ... at-we-dont

As long as we have loopholes such as unregulated private sales, unaccountability for guns, lack of permits for purchasing (but not necessarily tracking), the gun show loopholes, then criminals, mentally unstable people, people with anger problems, etc will continue to have unfettered access to guns.

It's all just part of the "responsible gun ownership" premise, and the true Liberal way of thinking.

Awake wrote:As long as we have loopholes such as unregulated private sales, unaccountability for guns, lack of permits for purchasing (but not necessarily tracking), the gun show loopholes, then criminals, mentally unstable people, people with anger problems, etc will continue to have unfettered access to guns.

It's all just part of the "responsible gun ownership" premise, and the true Liberal way of thinking.

Move invasive and intrusive access to my life by the government is not liberalism it's authoritarianism.

If I get treated for say depression, should I be refused a gun since I might decide to take others with me or suicide by cop? Nope. If someone has a history of anger issues that go far enough that society has been harmed, they will have Orders of Protection or a record of spousal abuse that will preclude them.

The BIDS system might be an answer for private sales. http://www.gunlaws.com/BIDS%20v.%20NICS.htm for more info.

Or else we can just go the route that Australia has done with the difference being that we actually have laws in place for home invasions.

ErikO wrote:

Awake wrote:As long as we have loopholes such as unregulated private sales, unaccountability for guns, lack of permits for purchasing (but not necessarily tracking), the gun show loopholes, then criminals, mentally unstable people, people with anger problems, etc will continue to have unfettered access to guns.

It's all just part of the "responsible gun ownership" premise, and the true Liberal way of thinking.

Move invasive and intrusive access to my life by the government is not liberalism it's authoritarianism.

So what you are suggesting is that in the interest of your concept of personal freedom, we need to live without rules or laws when they make sense? That is not liberalism, that is anarchism. Or maybe extreme right wing Tea-party thinking. Part of living in a liberal free society is living with the assurance that the personal freedoms of others will not intrude in my own personal freedoms.

If you get treated for depression (as in your example), and your doctor has concerns that your depression (or other mental issues) may lead to harming others or yourself, then your access to weapons should be immediately restricted, including handguns of any type, for your own and others protection. As a liberal I consider it an invasion of my freedom to know that people considered mentally ill are not restrained from having free access to guns, specially those that serve no self defense purpose. Or that criminals are given free access to guns because some right wing extremists, under the guise of being Constitutionalists, consider it an invasion of privacy or an impediment to free commerce to have background checks. A good example is the movie theater shooter from last month; he was diagnosed as mentally ill and a danger, but for privacy reasons he was not reported and investigated and most probably flagged as a danger to society. The result is 12 dead. What about their freedoms?

There is a difference between liberalism, authoritarianism and anarchy. If anything liberalism is about MORE rules to allow us all to live in a better society where we all work together for the mutual benefit, free of inequality, oppression, corporate greed. Or should we have no rules for food safety, or working conditions, or discrimination?

Awake wrote:

ErikO wrote:

Awake wrote:As long as we have loopholes such as unregulated private sales, unaccountability for guns, lack of permits for purchasing (but not necessarily tracking), the gun show loopholes, then criminals, mentally unstable people, people with anger problems, etc will continue to have unfettered access to guns.

It's all just part of the "responsible gun ownership" premise, and the true Liberal way of thinking.

Move invasive and intrusive access to my life by the government is not liberalism it's authoritarianism.

So what you are suggesting is that in the interest of your concept of personal freedom, we need to live without rules or laws when they make sense? That is not liberalism, that is anarchism. Or maybe extreme right wing Tea-party thinking. Part of living in a liberal free society is living with the assurance that the personal freedoms of others will not intrude in my own personal freedoms.

If you get treated for depression (as in your example), and your doctor has concerns that your depression (or other mental issues) may lead to harming others or yourself, then your access to weapons should be immediately restricted, including handguns of any type, for your own and others protection. As a liberal I consider it an invasion of my freedom to know that people considered mentally ill are not restrained from having free access to guns, specially those that serve no self defense purpose. Or that criminals are given free access to guns because some right wing extremists, under the guise of being Constitutionalists, consider it an invasion of privacy or an impediment to free commerce to have background checks. A good example is the movie theater shooter from last month; he was diagnosed as mentally ill and a danger, but for privacy reasons he was not reported and investigated and most probably flagged as a danger to society. The result is 12 dead. What about their freedoms?

There is a difference between liberalism, authoritarianism and anarchy. If anything liberalism is about MORE rules to allow us all to live in a better society where we all work together for the mutual benefit, free of inequality, oppression, corporate greed. Or should we have no rules for food safety, or working conditions, or discrimination?

I think mental health will always be a gray area for gun ownership. Depression is widespread and affects almost 10% of Americans at any given time, 3.4% serious depression (CDC figures). I've read 25% of people are touched by depression at some point in their lives. Obviously with suicide comprising almost 60% of gun deaths annually, it's a public health issue.

Hate to sound like a numbers guy, but it's revealing. The US has a population of 310 million people. Say 9% rate of depression give us a hair under 28 million people suffering depression. A serious rate of depression at 3.4% according to CDC put the seriously depressed demographic at 10.5 million. 17,000 suicides by gun every year in the US and the rate among the seriously depressed is, theoretically, a fraction of a percent, something like .16% if the figures are accurate. What do we live with here, in an imperfect world? Other countries with high suicide rate such as Switzerland and Finland face the same issue.

What should not be a gray area, but is and likely to remain so legally, is privacy rights vs. public rights. How much access should NICS and law enforcement have to HIPAA databases? Obviously there needs to be enough access to provide NICS a database of those who've been hospitalized for mental illness, at minimum. How to keep weapons from the Jared Loughners and James Holmes of this country is something we will be struggling with for a long time. Laws don't fix everything, but they do work nonetheless.

This bit of the article bears repeating:

"Our ability to predict human behavior is not that great. We don't even think that we can be right most of the time," says Joel Dvoskin, a forensic and clinical psychologist at the University of Arizona Medical School. "I don't pretend I'm Carnac the Magnificent and that I can hold my hand up to somebody's forehead and tell them what they're going to do in three years. It's a dicey business."

lemur wrote:This bit of the article bears repeating:

"Our ability to predict human behavior is not that great. We don't even think that we can be right most of the time," says Joel Dvoskin, a forensic and clinical psychologist at the University of Arizona Medical School. "I don't pretend I'm Carnac the Magnificent and that I can hold my hand up to somebody's forehead and tell them what they're going to do in three years. It's a dicey business."

(Selective quoting out of context only works when it goes unchallenged}

So is this bit of the article worth repeating:

They repeatedly told police in Biddeford, Maine, that the 49-year-old was off his meds for bipolar disorder. And police were also told he had guns. But still, because he wasn't doing anything that rose to the legal definition of imminent threat, police said their hands were tied.

Bipolar. Off his meds. Active warning to police that he was a danger. But still allowed to legally own an unlimited number of firearms, including AK-47's with hicap magazines. You don't have to be Carmac the Magnificent to see the problem. But the all important "personal rights" so cherished by the radical right wing take precedence above the true liberal view of "common good."

troutkiller wrote: 17,000 suicides by gun every year in the US and the rate among the seriously depressed is, theoretically, a fraction of a percent, something like .16% if the figures are accurate. What do we live with here, in an imperfect world? Other countries with high suicide rate such as Switzerland and Finland face the same issue.

That figure does not start to include the true number of deaths and injuries to self and others related to depression. If a person had alcohol in their system it is not counted as a depression related suicide, even though we know that many depressives also drink, and that drinking facilitates suicide. And what about unsuccessful attempts? Or violence against others? How many murder-suicides are being counted? Or spousal threats and abuse? Successful suicides are the tip of the iceberg when it comes to depression and violence.

Awake wrote: Bipolar. Off his meds.

You missed the point.

Awake wrote:Bipolar. Off his meds. Active warning to police that he was a danger. But still allowed to legally own an unlimited number of firearms, including AK-47's with hicap magazines. You don't have to be Carmac the Magnificent to see the problem. But the all important "personal rights" so cherished by the radical right wing take precedence above the true liberal view of "common good."

Awake,

I think that you seem to be having some kind of misunderstanding about mental health laws and practice. Having worked in the field for many years I can tell you that the quote that lemur placed is pretty accurate. Mental health has advanced quite a bit in its 150 or so year history, but as far as predictive ability, we are still in the infancy of the field. There is a great struggle to balance the rights of people with mental illness and the safety of the community. You appear to suggest that the police should have gone into the home of this man and done what? Taken his guns? Arrested him and taken him involuntarily for treatment? Stood there until he took his medications? Then come back every day to make sure he stays on them? Having been on many sides of that issue, I can tell you that it is extremely difficult to figure out what to do.

When I was 18 I lived with a relative who has a mental illness. We had guns in the house. My relative was going through a period of active symptoms. I made the decision to gather up the guns and some of the knives we had in the house and leave one day when my parents were out of town, I was home alone with my relative, and I noticed the symptoms. I ended up calling the police to do a welfare check when I got to another relatives home. My relative was put under 72 hour hold. I also worked doing assessments for detention and there were times when I put people into the hospital and times when I had to leave them in their home because they did not meet the criteria to have their civil liberties and freedoms taken away. I remember the frustration of relatives and my own, but it is a huge responsibility to decide who gets locked up and who doesn't.

The idea of individual liberty v. common good is not a radical right wing idea, it is a balance that all people struggle with and the amount of personal liberty people advocate for varies with each issue. Would you advocate that the police should be allowed to go into people's homes without due process on the suspicion that they might be doing something dangerous? Or do you believe that individuals should have the confidence knowing that the authorities can't just barge into their homes or take their possessions?

This idea of the "true liberal" view seems arbitrary. The article clearly points out how difficult it is to even identify and predict who will be violent. People with mental illnesses can be erratic and dangerous at times, but the amount of violence that they engage in is not really any more that people who are not diagnosed. Criminalizing them and taking away their rights might have the effect of pushing them away from treatment. As it is, the stigma and social repercussions can be a significant factor in dissuading them from seeking help. The idea of precautionary interventions might have some promise, but it would have to be done in a way that respects people and does not push them into the shadows.

Caliman73 wrote:

Awake wrote:Bipolar. Off his meds. Active warning to police that he was a danger. But still allowed to legally own an unlimited number of firearms, including AK-47's with hicap magazines. You don't have to be Carmac the Magnificent to see the problem. But the all important "personal rights" so cherished by the radical right wing take precedence above the true liberal view of "common good."

Awake,

I think that you seem to be having some kind of misunderstanding about mental health laws and practice. Having worked in the field for many years I can tell you that the quote that lemur placed is pretty accurate. Mental health has advanced quite a bit in its 150 or so year history, but as far as predictive ability, we are still in the infancy of the field. There is a great struggle to balance the rights of people with mental illness and the safety of the community. You appear to suggest that the police should have gone into the home of this man and done what? Taken his guns? Arrested him and taken him involuntarily for treatment? Stood there until he took his medications? Then come back every day to make sure he stays on them? Having been on many sides of that issue, I can tell you that it is extremely difficult to figure out what to do.

When I was 18 I lived with a relative who has a mental illness. We had guns in the house. My relative was going through a period of active symptoms. I made the decision to gather up the guns and some of the knives we had in the house and leave one day when my parents were out of town, I was home alone with my relative, and I noticed the symptoms. I ended up calling the police to do a welfare check when I got to another relatives home. My relative was put under 72 hour hold. I also worked doing assessments for detention and there were times when I put people into the hospital and times when I had to leave them in their home because they did not meet the criteria to have their civil liberties and freedoms taken away. I remember the frustration of relatives and my own, but it is a huge responsibility to decide who gets locked up and who doesn't.

The idea of individual liberty v. common good is not a radical right wing idea, it is a balance that all people struggle with and the amount of personal liberty people advocate for varies with each issue. Would you advocate that the police should be allowed to go into people's homes without due process on the suspicion that they might be doing something dangerous? Or do you believe that individuals should have the confidence knowing that the authorities can't just barge into their homes or take their possessions?

This idea of the "true liberal" view seems arbitrary. The article clearly points out how difficult it is to even identify and predict who will be violent. People with mental illnesses can be erratic and dangerous at times, but the amount of violence that they engage in is not really any more that people who are not diagnosed. Criminalizing them and taking away their rights might have the effect of pushing them away from treatment. As it is, the stigma and social repercussions can be a significant factor in dissuading them from seeking help. The idea of precautionary interventions might have some promise, but it would have to be done in a way that respects people and does not push them into the shadows.

Good post. Additionally, as the article pointed out, blanket "intermediate interventions" for anyone who has been in treatment for mental illness is a good way to stigmatize an already (still) misunderstood public health problem. The last thing we want is complete avoidance of treatment because of a fear of a knock on the door from the local sheriff's office.

highdesert wrote:I suspected that there wasn't any central database, I can also see a patients vs public rights battle on that one. Our system of state mental health hospitals in California was dismantled years ago, we have just a few for the criminally insane. Overworked and under funded county mental health services were expected to pick up services but often these clients end up in jail, the LA County Jails are the largest unofficial state hospital in California.


On August 8th, NPR's Talk of the Nation had a segment called "Guns 101: What We Know And What We Don't". They got flooded with so many calls and e-mails that they promised a more extensive program in the near future.
http://www.npr.org/2012/08/08/158433081 ... at-we-dont

This is changing subjects a little, but the biggest reason gum owners say they own guns is protection. But these statistics indicate that guns in a home actually make the gun owner less safe. This is something I struggle with as I contemplate having children. I purchased my first handgun after a prostitute got beat up at my door step and my wife chased off the attacker. I thought (as I waited for the police) of what I would do if the attacker came back.

I guess I think myself as more reasonable, safer, and better educated therefore he statistical risk does not apply to me. I think so many gun owners are low income, uneducated, and right wing nutjobs.

I know the answer here will have a pro-gun slant, but do guns really protect us? And if not, do they really hurt us (assuming we take reasonable steps to secure them)?

^ pardon the iPhone autocorrect.

rdenny wrote:

highdesert wrote:I suspected that there wasn't any central database, I can also see a patients vs public rights battle on that one. Our system of state mental health hospitals in California was dismantled years ago, we have just a few for the criminally insane. Overworked and under funded county mental health services were expected to pick up services but often these clients end up in jail, the LA County Jails are the largest unofficial state hospital in California.


On August 8th, NPR's Talk of the Nation had a segment called "Guns 101: What We Know And What We Don't". They got flooded with so many calls and e-mails that they promised a more extensive program in the near future.
http://www.npr.org/2012/08/08/158433081 ... at-we-dont

This is changing subjects a little, but the biggest reason gum owners say they own guns is protection. But these statistics indicate that guns in a home actually make the gun owner less safe. This is something I struggle with as I contemplate having children. I purchased my first handgun after a prostitute got beat up at my door step and my wife chased off the attacker. I thought (as I waited for the police) of what I would do if the attacker came back.

I guess I think myself as more reasonable, safer, and better educated therefore he statistical risk does not apply to me. I think so many gun owners are low income, uneducated, and right wing nutjobs.

I know the answer here will have a pro-gun slant, but do guns really protect us? And if not, do they really hurt us (assuming we take reasonable steps to secure them)?

Also keep in mind another stat from Dr Rosenberg, 60% of shootings are suicide. I strongly suspect that if you drilled down on his "unsafe" stats that they contain a large number of suicides. And demographic info which you mention has to be an important factor, especially age and socioeconomic level.

Gallup Poll mentioned:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/Self- ... -1993.aspx

Caliman73 wrote:.
When I was 18 I lived with a relative who has a mental illness. We had guns in the house. My relative was going through a period of active symptoms. I made the decision to gather up the guns and some of the knives we had in the house and leave one day when my parents were out of town, I was home alone with my relative, and I noticed the symptoms. I ended up calling the police to do a welfare check when I got to another relatives home. My relative was put under 72 hour hold. I also worked doing assessments for detention and there were times when I put people into the hospital and times when I had to leave them in their home because they did not meet the criteria to have their civil liberties and freedoms taken away. I remember the frustration of relatives and my own, but it is a huge responsibility to decide who gets locked up and who doesn't.

So you saw an individual that was mentally ill, and decided to remove all guns from his surroundings, just in case. Yet you advocate giving mental patients the benefit of the doubt. Interesting that when push came to shove, you took the same safe route that I advocate, and restricted his access to guns.
Part of the discussion about mental illness is its unpredictability and uncertainty, and that has to be a big factor in setting fair policy. I tend towards the liberal (socialist?) view that common good trumps individual rights when it comes to safety, rather than taking the right wing view that individual rights are everything.

So then anyone with a mental illness needs to be precluded from gun ownership?

Awake wrote:

Caliman73 wrote:.
When I was 18 I lived with a relative who has a mental illness. We had guns in the house. My relative was going through a period of active symptoms. I made the decision to gather up the guns and some of the knives we had in the house and leave one day when my parents were out of town, I was home alone with my relative, and I noticed the symptoms. I ended up calling the police to do a welfare check when I got to another relatives home. My relative was put under 72 hour hold. I also worked doing assessments for detention and there were times when I put people into the hospital and times when I had to leave them in their home because they did not meet the criteria to have their civil liberties and freedoms taken away. I remember the frustration of relatives and my own, but it is a huge responsibility to decide who gets locked up and who doesn't.

So you saw an individual that was mentally ill, and decided to remove all guns from his surroundings, just in case. Yet you advocate giving mental patients the benefit of the doubt. Interesting that when push came to shove, you took the same safe route that I advocate, and restricted his access to guns.
Part of the discussion about mental illness is its unpredictability and uncertainty, and that has to be a big factor in setting fair policy. I tend towards the liberal (socialist?) view that common good trumps individual rights when it comes to safety, rather than taking the right wing view that individual rights are everything.

Wow Awake,

You seem truly read your own biases into statements and miss a great many points. I was relaying a personal story in which I made a judgement call. Me, a private citizen, who seeing my relative and knowing some of the history, decided to act. Had I been pulled over with guns in my car (if you read my posts, you will know that I have been pulled over a few times) I could have ended up in jail. It was my call because it was my family. I would not advocate a blanket policy of going in and taking people's guns. Those were my father's guns, my guns, and I did not want them ending up being sold, or possibly used so I made a personal call. My critique is on families who can see relatives but do nothing and rely on the State to take some kind of action. My relative was assessed, ended up being released after 23 hours in detention, and proceeded to stop taking medications again. Why? because that is the balance in the system. I know it can be frustrating as I said, I have been on the other side doing the assessment as well, but my point was not to advocate for government making choices about people's rights. It was about families and communities getting involved rather than sitting back and saying, "I knew something was going to happen..."

I am sorry but the way I see it, you don't tend towards liberal, and don't bring socialism into the argument. You tend toward authoritarianism. Uncertainty should NEVER be a factor in making blanket policies which strip away people's rights. Those "uncertainties" were the same factors, based on fear, that kept minorities from exercising other rights. Rules are a poor substitute for actual involvement and personal work. More rules are for lazy people who cannot think of other solutions.

highdesert wrote: Also keep in mind another stat from Dr Rosenberg, 60% of shootings are suicide. I strongly suspect that if you drilled down on his "unsafe" stats that they contain a large number of suicides. And demographic info which you mention has to be an important factor, especially age and socioeconomic level.

Good point, but people who are against gun ownership fail to see the issue. They imagine that if we could just wave a magic wand to make all guns disappear, then suicidal folks would say "Golly! I would have willfully killed myself if I had a gun but I don't have a gun anymore because the anti-gun fairy came and made my guns disappear. I guess I'll just live happily until I die of natural causes then."

Another thing to keep in mind is the issue of correlation vs causation, which 99.92081836% of statistical studies published with great fanfare fail to address. (This figure is very precise, hence necessarily true.) Is it possible that dangerous circumstances make people likely to acquire guns, rather than guns making people's placid circumstances suddenly dangerous?

Caliman, thank you for sharing your perspective thoughtfully!