The Liberal Gun Club Forum

From The New York Times:

Why Not Regulate Guns as Seriously as Toys?
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF


After the tragedy in Tucson, let’s reframe the debate on gun control as a public health challenge.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/13/opini ... istof.html

-- Sent from my Palm Pre

Good article.

Of course it's going to be jumped all over by the "guns don't cause any problems" crowd, here and elsewhere...

masonalannz wrote:Good article.

Of course it's going to be jumped all over by the "guns don't cause any problems" crowd, here and elsewhere...

Because they don't.

Does a gun chemically modify your brain when you touch it? Does it emit some kind of neurochemical?

Wurble wrote:

masonalannz wrote:Good article.

Of course it's going to be jumped all over by the "guns don't cause any problems" crowd, here and elsewhere...

Because they don't.

Does a gun chemically modify your brain when you touch it? Does it emit some kind of neurochemical?

They really seem to bring out the asshole in some people and shut down the areas of the brain responsible for critical thinking.

masonalannz wrote:Good article.

Of course it's going to be jumped all over by the "guns don't cause any problems" crowd, here and elsewhere...

That is a disingenuous statement. The article does present valid points, but to suggest that people, especially on this site claim that guns do not present any problems in society is the kind of rhetoric that keeps the situation tense.

Violence is a problem. The use of guns by violent people is a problem. The use of guns be the vast majority of people who are not violent is not a problem.

There is a difference between the regulation of cars, toys, and guns. That difference is obvious to people who are willing to see it. You have to regulate cars so that the brakes are reasonably guaranteed to work, so that the engine does not blow up in your face, and so that airbags deploy if a collision were to occur. Those are regulations that occur because of situations that arise through normal use. Same with toys. Lead is a toxic substance that creates problems in child development through normal use and exposure.

The attempts at regulating guns are because of misuse by people. It would be like the government saying that cars will now only go 65 miles per hour, or have some device in them that keeps anyone from exceeding any posted speed limit, making illegal turns. What people are proposing for guns is like installing sensors that gauge our BAC, level of alertness, distractability, and other factors that might cause us to misuse the vehicle. Further more, it is like having the government ban gray cars because they are the most stolen, or red cars because they are the most likely to be caught speeding.

Guns cause problems because they are misused through intent or neglect. I am not against regulation of firearms, but I am against regulations that do nothing to actually improve the safety of the community.

Gun violence can be considered a public health issue, but it is more properly handled as a social and cultural issue. Those are the solutions in my opinion, that will be most effective in dealing with the root causes.

I think the guy has some interesting points, and there are many gun owners, like mason, grove and others, that would agree with him.

My question is this.... what regulation could we put in place that would have prevented this? How would any of the regulations have prevented this? One suggestion is that an LCM ban would minimize the carnage, but I am talking about what could we do to avoid the situation in the first place?

Should we require schools, employers, police to report people like this to the NICS system if they feel they have the potential to go off the deep end? No, I think that is a system that has a lot of potential for abuse. Unfortunately, people have very few options for reporting/helping a mentally disturbed person. You call the police and they can't do anything unless the person has already done something wrong, is in the process of doing something wrong or they can prove he was going to do something wrong. They can't do much.

If someone is a threat to themselves or others because of mental issues they can be involuntarily committed. But that is sometimes a difficult thing to prove, and presents a nasty scenario for the individual. According to this site, in NC at least, "it must be clear that the person is mentally ill and a danger to self or others. "Danger to self or others" includes threats of suicide or suicidal gestures or plans, significant self-injury, threats of violence to others or actual behaviors that cause harm to others or to property, or a lack of self-care so serious and persistent that injury or disease is likely to result." None of these apply to him because all of his threats appear to have been scribbled down in secret somewhere or on some youtube page that no one viewed.

So...... people who encounter someone that they think is mentally disturbed currently have the choice of : involving law enforcement for criminal activity, or going to your local courts and trying to get them involuntarily commited - which involves the police coming out to take them away OR doing nothing. Most people do the third.

I say we need some sort of alternative for people like Mr. Loughner; people who don't cleanly fit any of the reasons why they can either be locked up or involuntarily committed. People that you aren't 100% sure are dangerous but it sure the heck seems like it.

Perhaps something like this?:

1. If a person suspects that another person has a serious mental illness that has the potential to become violent and result in injury to themselves or others they can file a petition with their local court for 'involuntary well being assessment". The petition requires the petitioner to enumerate the behaviors that lead them to believe that the person is unwell. The petition is reviewed by a judge (in consult with a mental health professional) who determines its merit.

2. If the petition is found to have merit a subpoena is served to the person telling them simply that they are required to report to mental health facility X within 48 hours because someone is concerned about their well being. Tell them its free, and they will simply be given a medical assessment.

3. If they don't show up the cops come and take them to the center.

4. That medical assessment is then presented to the judge who can either: dismiss the case, have them involuntarily committed or require mandatory therapy for X time period with a medical report following therapy to be submitted to the court.


I think that something *like* this would allow people to have an additional way to act to protect their community. No one wants to involuntarily commit someone based on suspicion, nor report them to the police simply because they are 'weird'.

Of course, once the judge issues the order for them to be evaluated, the are temporarily put on the NICS list as people prohibited from buying firearms. These are people, after all, that a judge has ruled have the potential to be dangerously mentally ill. It should be immediate, but needs to be implemented so that if the person is found to not be a danger their right to buy firearms can be immediately restored.

--------------------

Go on...... tear it apart. Its just an idea I thought of quickly. tomorrow it may sound stupid to me.

mark wrote:I think the guy has some interesting points, and there are many gun owners, like mason, grove and others, that would agree with him.

My question is this.... what regulation could we put in place that would have prevented this? How would any of the regulations have prevented this? One suggestion is that an LCM ban would minimize the carnage, but I am talking about what could we do to avoid the situation in the first place?

Should we require schools, employers, police to report people like this to the NICS system if they feel they have the potential to go off the deep end? No, I think that is a system that has a lot of potential for abuse. Unfortunately, people have very few options for reporting/helping a mentally disturbed person. You call the police and they can't do anything unless the person has already done something wrong, is in the process of doing something wrong or they can prove he was going to do something wrong. They can't do much.

If someone is a threat to themselves or others because of mental issues they can be involuntarily committed. But that is sometimes a difficult thing to prove, and presents a nasty scenario for the individual. According to this site, in NC at least, "it must be clear that the person is mentally ill and a danger to self or others. "Danger to self or others" includes threats of suicide or suicidal gestures or plans, significant self-injury, threats of violence to others or actual behaviors that cause harm to others or to property, or a lack of self-care so serious and persistent that injury or disease is likely to result." None of these apply to him because all of his threats appear to have been scribbled down in secret somewhere or on some youtube page that no one viewed.

So...... people who encounter someone that they think is mentally disturbed currently have the choice of : involving law enforcement for criminal activity, or going to your local courts and trying to get them involuntarily commited - which involves the police coming out to take them away OR doing nothing. Most people do the third.

I say we need some sort of alternative for people like Mr. Loughner; people who don't cleanly fit any of the reasons why they can either be locked up or involuntarily committed. People that you aren't 100% sure are dangerous but it sure the heck seems like it.

Perhaps something like this?:

1. If a person suspects that another person has a serious mental illness that has the potential to become violent and result in injury to themselves or others they can file a petition with their local court for 'involuntary well being assessment". The petition requires the petitioner to enumerate the behaviors that lead them to believe that the person is unwell. The petition is reviewed by a judge (in consult with a mental health professional) who determines its merit.

2. If the petition is found to have merit a subpoena is served to the person telling them simply that they are required to report to mental health facility X within 48 hours because someone is concerned about their well being. Tell them its free, and they will simply be given a medical assessment.

3. If they don't show up the cops come and take them to the center.

4. That medical assessment is then presented to the judge who can either: dismiss the case, have them involuntarily committed or require mandatory therapy for X time period with a medical report following therapy to be submitted to the court.


I think that something *like* this would allow people to have an additional way to act to protect their community. No one wants to involuntarily commit someone based on suspicion, nor report them to the police simply because they are 'weird'.

Of course, once the judge issues the order for them to be evaluated, the are temporarily put on the NICS list as people prohibited from buying firearms. These are people, after all, that a judge has ruled have the potential to be dangerously mentally ill. It should be immediate, but needs to be implemented so that if the person is found to not be a danger their right to buy firearms can be immediately restored.

--------------------

Go on...... tear it apart. Its just an idea I thought of quickly. tomorrow it may sound stupid to me.

Mark,

Any system has the potential for abuse. California has a system where authorities can do a "welfare check" on people.

I used to work mobile crisis and have done my share of welfare checks and 5150's (that is our welfare and institution code for 72 hour involuntary detention). It is a touchy situation because you are stripping citizens of their civil liberties. We were always underfunded and overworked. It was a very tough experience although it was a passion of mine to get people the help they needed.

Your suggestions are valid, but the problem is that social services are always the very first thing to be cut from budgets. In CA we passed Prop. 63 which was supposed to fund mental health services through a windfall tax. The plan was to have police agencies and mental health professionals cross train and actually work together to get people help without having to involve arrests and such. The proposition was fought in court, it was gutted, then it was reabsorbed into general funds, boom, gone, no more funds.

I see no problem in reporting people for "weird" or "scary" behavior. The thing is, we need trained professionals who can approach and engage these guys. There has been such a stigma attached to mental illness, that even some people in the field were looking at these individuals as problems that needed to be solved rather than human beings who were suffering and needed help (even if they didn't want it).

I get what you are saying and it makes sense.

I guess my thought is that if we are to create laws to try to prevent this from happening then they should be things that are properly focused. I think 'ban glocks' or something similar won't make one bit of difference. We need lots of changes, some that we have talked about here before, to reduce crime (deal with poverty, drugs, etc). But those do nothing to help prevent this particular type of action.... this man was nuts but we didn't have anything in place to keep him from getting a gun, or to get him the help he needed.

So..... what can we do? Ideal situation, well funded,etc., how do we minimize the ability of people with violent mental health issues from doing things like this?

mark wrote:I get what you are saying and it makes sense.

I guess my thought is that if we are to create laws to try to prevent this from happening then they should be things that are properly focused. I think 'ban glocks' or something similar won't make one bit of difference. We need lots of changes, some that we have talked about here before, to reduce crime (deal with poverty, drugs, etc). But those do nothing to help prevent this particular type of action.... this man was nuts but we didn't have anything in place to keep him from getting a gun, or to get him the help he needed.

So..... what can we do? Ideal situation, well funded,etc., how do we minimize the ability of people with violent mental health issues from doing things like this?

In an ideal situation we would have an infrastructure to provide community counseling and case management for people. There is that famous, albeit dubious statistic that 1 in 5 or 20% of the population suffers from some kind of mental illness at some point in their lives. The occurrence of severe, chronic mental illness is lower than that. Let's call it 10% just for the sake of the formulation. The ideal would be that each municipality would have the funding and staff to provide treatment and case management and outreach for individuals.

Trained crisis staff would be available to respond to public calls for evaluation and make a determination of the threat posed by the individual. Information about hospitalization based on Danger to Self or Others would be required to be input and transmitted to the NICS database and would create a temporary hold on the person purchasing any firearms or firearms related items until the matter was successfully appealed.

States, Counties, and municipalities failing to keep their records up to date would be severely fined.