2405 shot dead since Tucson

[diablopilot 2]

Define nutcase. Define loonie.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[normiss 801]

Offensive terms used to refer to those considered to be of lesser mental capacity by those thinking of themselves as mentally superior?

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Without changing HIPAA laws, there will always be a few newsworthy borderline "loonies" that will find a way to purchase guns.

I don't think you work very closely with HIPPA. HIPPA is really not a barrier.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[riddler 0]

Quote

Just curious, since the Tuscon shootings, how many people have died due to heart disease? How many people have died due to terminal illnesses such as cancer? How many people have died due to drug overdoses? How many people have died due to alcohol abuse? How many people have died due to traffic accidents? etc, etc, etc.

Seems like you're comparing people that die from natural causes, accidents and self-destruction to the willful acts of one person murdering another. I don't see how those two things even compare.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Without changing HIPAA laws, there will always be a few newsworthy borderline "loonies" that will find a way to purchase guns.

I don't think you work very closely with HIPPA. HIPPA is really not a barrier.

Individually identifiable health information” is information, including demographic data, that relates to:

the individual’s past, present or future physical or mental health or condition,
the provision of health care to the individual, or
the past, present, or future payment for the provision of health care to the individual,
and that identifies the individual or for which there is a reasonable basis to believe it can be used to identify the individual.13 Individually identifiable health information includes many common identifiers (e.g., name, address, birth date, Social Security Number).

Looks like a pretty good barrier to me.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I should like rigorous enforcement of existing laws that forbid felons and nutcases from buying guns.

That means a background check on ALL purchases - no exceptions.

Wouldn't affect you, would it?

It's not like I haven't written exactly the same thing a dozen times before.

So, since that is an EXPANSION of existing law, that makes all your claims of 'supporting existing law', lies.

At least it's finally out in the open.

Having a hard time telling the difference between expansion and enforcement?

The current law mandates background checks on FFL sales. You want background checks on all sales. Do you think that is not an expansion beyond what is requires by law?

Now do you see why many here don't know what your positions on individual gun rights are? So can you link us to a post or thread where you clearly stated your views on gun rights and/or the second amendment. I can and have. Can you?

Do I have to create a survey of 100 yes or no questions for you just so we can be clear?

edit to add:
or is this going to be the fourth thread in a row where you ducked out after being called out?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Without changing HIPAA laws, there will always be a few newsworthy borderline "loonies" that will find a way to purchase guns.

I don't think you work very closely with HIPPA. HIPPA is really not a barrier.

Individually identifiable health information” is information, including demographic data, that relates to:

the individual’s past, present or future physical or mental health or condition,
the provision of health care to the individual, or
the past, present, or future payment for the provision of health care to the individual,
and that identifies the individual or for which there is a reasonable basis to believe it can be used to identify the individual.13 Individually identifiable health information includes many common identifiers (e.g., name, address, birth date, Social Security Number).

Looks like a pretty good barrier to me.

There are clear exceptions to HIPPA. Being adjudicated incompetent or committed to a mental institution fall under those exceptions.

There are cases (famously the CHO case) when somebody should have been put on the NICS checklist. This was an administrative oversight and error but was not related to HIPPA.

I work with HIPPA every single day.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Without changing HIPAA laws, there will always be a few newsworthy borderline "loonies" that will find a way to purchase guns.

I don't think you work very closely with HIPPA. HIPPA is really not a barrier.

Individually identifiable health information” is information, including demographic data, that relates to:

the individual’s past, present or future physical or mental health or condition,
the provision of health care to the individual, or
the past, present, or future payment for the provision of health care to the individual,
and that identifies the individual or for which there is a reasonable basis to believe it can be used to identify the individual.13 Individually identifiable health information includes many common identifiers (e.g., name, address, birth date, Social Security Number).

Looks like a pretty good barrier to me.

There are clear exceptions to HIPPA. Being adjudicated incompetent or committed to a mental institution fall under those exceptions.

There are cases (famously the CHO case) when somebody should have been put on the NICS checklist. This was an administrative oversight and error but was not related to HIPPA.

I work with HIPPA every single day.

Nobody has made the claim that HIPAA would prevent reporting adjudication of incompetency or commitment to an institution. For someone that has NOT been adjudicated incompetent or committed to an institution (as in the example above), reporting of mental health/condition WOULD be a violation of HIPAA.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[normiss 801]

Exactly. This is what I meant in my post.
Those that are deemed "nutter" or "loony" or otherwise borderline WILL require some modification to HIPAA in order for their treatment of any mental disorder known to disallow a firearm purchase. (Not to include any military members or former members with PTSD though).

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Nobody has made the claim that HIPAA would prevent reporting adjudication of incompetency or commitment to an institution. For someone that has NOT been adjudicated incompetent or committed to an institution (as in the example above), reporting of mental health/condition WOULD be a violation of HIPAA.

If that is the case then I am a little unclear what the original claim was about. I just saw that HIPPA would or could prevent the proper functioning of the NCIS registry. I don't think HIPPA prevents that as it is clearly an exception. If that is not what the original claim was then I am not seeing how and why HIPPA would need to be changed?

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Exactly. This is what I meant in my post.
Those that are deemed "nutter" or "loony" or otherwise borderline WILL require some modification to HIPAA in order for their treatment of any mental disorder known to disallow a firearm purchase. (Not to include any military members or former members with PTSD though).

So you wish to lower the barrier to putting people on the NCIS list? I am confused.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

So you wish to lower the barrier to putting people on the NCIS list?

This is what this movement is really all about. First, they want to require that all gun sales go through a background check against a computer database of "prohibited persons". If your name is on that list, you don't get a gun, period. Then what the anti-gun folks will proceed to do next is to put ever-more people on that list, growing it in size over time, bigger and bigger. They'll add misdemeanors to the list, drunk drivers, tax cheats, anyone who ever suffered from depression, you name it. Pretty soon, everyone who ever did something stupid as a teenager, will be banned from gun ownership for life. No more big anti-gun laws will be required - all they'll have to do is keep expanding the variety of people on "the list" that are prohibited. And pretty soon, there won't be anyone who is NOT on the list. This movement is just to get the camel's nose inside the tent. But rest assured, they intend to have the entire camel sleeping inside.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Quote

So you wish to lower the barrier to putting people on the NCIS list?

This is what this movement is really all about. First, they want to require that all gun sales go through a background check against a computer database of "prohibited persons". If your name is on that list, you don't get a gun, period. Then what the anti-gun folks will proceed to do next is to put ever-more people on that list, growing it in size over time, bigger and bigger. They'll add misdemeanors to the list, drunk drivers, tax cheats, anyone who ever suffered from depression, you name it. Pretty soon, everyone who ever did something stupid as a teenager, will be banned from gun ownership for life. No more big anti-gun laws will be required - all they'll have to do is keep expanding the variety of people on "the list" that are prohibited. And pretty soon, there won't be anyone who is NOT on the list. This movement is just to get the camel's nose inside the tent. But rest assured, they intend to have the entire camel sleeping inside.

Yes, this part I understand, I just would not have put normiss and mnealtx on that side of the argument. I think maybe I'm not following exactly what the claims are.

I just said that HIPPA is not a barrier to the proper functioning of the current NCIS as it is an exception to the rule.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[normiss 801]

Or an expansion of the rule if you will.

There are those here that always want to include the "nutters" without a clear definition while referring to emotional and newsworthy cases. Insisting that the current laws are insufficient as there are those that seem to slip through current law and processes.

[mnealtx 0]

The perfesser has, in the past, stated that a doctor's statement regarding psychiatric health should be part of the purchase paperwork.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

There are those here that always want to include the "nutters" without a clear definition while referring to emotional and newsworthy cases.

Regarding that, a citizen shouldn't be on the no-guns list as a "nutter" unless he has been so adjudicated by a court of law. If you're going to deny a constitutional right, the citizen deserves to have a fair hearing in court. This should not be done willy-nilly based upon a single report from a doctor, or a couple of accusations made by concerned citizens. If he's legitimately dangerous, then concerned DA's should be able to prove it to a judge.

Another problem is that the gun-o-phobes want everyone on the no-fly list to be added to the no-guns list. And we've all heard the stories of innocent people being turned away from their airline flights. The government need not prove any probable cause in a court of law before putting names on that list. People on the no-fly list are just presumed guilty, end of story. That's the wrong way to do it, and it has become widely recognized as a circus.

We also shouldn't be putting every solider on a no-gun list just because they return from the war and receive some PTSD counseling. Just because you've seen a shrink, doesn't mean you are dangerous.

We still have a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The gun-grabbers would love to put as many people as possible on this list, with a minimum of accountability or standards for doing so.

I don't want a no-gun list to be handled like the no-fly list. It would become riddled with abuse under the expansions proposed by the anti-gun folks, and the citizens of America deserve better.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Quote

There are those here that always want to include the "nutters" without a clear definition while referring to emotional and newsworthy cases.

Regarding that, a citizen shouldn't be on the no-guns list as a "nutter" unless he has been so adjudicated by a court of law. If you're going to deny a constitutional right, the citizen deserves to have a fair hearing in court. This should not be done willy-nilly based upon a single report from a doctor, or a couple of accusations made by concerned citizens. If he's legitimately dangerous, then concerned DA's should be able to prove it to a judge.

I work in the mental health system (posted that before). We are very bad at predicting what people have the potential to become violent. About the only reliable indicator is that people who have become violent in the past are much more likely to become violent in the future (that is true both for mentally ill persons and the population at large).

I would be much more OK with expanding the list of crimes that would put you on the no-purchase list. Violent misdemeanors, for example.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[kallend 2,027]

Why do you want it to be easy for felons and loonies to buy guns?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,027]

Why do YOU want it to be easy for felons and loonies to buy guns?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Or an expansion of the rule if you will.

There are those here that always want to include the "nutters" without a clear definition while referring to emotional and newsworthy cases. Insisting that the current laws are insufficient as there are those that seem to slip through current law and processes.

Of course there are, because the enforcement of the law even with current definitions is so easy to circumvent, and those who so loudly trumpet "personal responsibility" are the ones who seem to object the most to being responsible when it comes to private gun sales.

Why do you want it to be easy for felons and loonies to buy guns?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Or an expansion of the rule if you will.

There are those here that always want to include the "nutters" without a clear definition while referring to emotional and newsworthy cases. Insisting that the current laws are insufficient as there are those that seem to slip through current law and processes.

Of course there are, because the enforcement of the law even with current definitions is so easy to circumvent, and those who so loudly trumpet "personal responsibility" are the ones who seem to object the most to being responsible when it comes to private gun sales.

Why do you want it to be easy for felons and loonies to buy guns?

And your numerous examples backing your assurtions are being waited for.

In the mean time

why do you wish to take a constitutional rights away from law abiding citizens?


Why would you label the law abiding as loonies just to satisfy your sick ideas that less people are sane enough to have a gun?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Or an expansion of the rule if you will.

There are those here that always want to include the "nutters" without a clear definition while referring to emotional and newsworthy cases. Insisting that the current laws are insufficient as there are those that seem to slip through current law and processes.

Of course there are, because the enforcement of the law even with current definitions is so easy to circumvent, and those who so loudly trumpet "personal responsibility" are the ones who seem to object the most to being responsible when it comes to private gun sales.

Why do you want it to be easy for felons and loonies to buy guns?

And your numerous examples backing your assurtions are being waited for.

In the mean time

why do you wish to take a constitutional rights away from law abiding citizens?

I take it that you didn't bother to read the Heller decision.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Or an expansion of the rule if you will.

There are those here that always want to include the "nutters" without a clear definition while referring to emotional and newsworthy cases. Insisting that the current laws are insufficient as there are those that seem to slip through current law and processes.

Of course there are, because the enforcement of the law even with current definitions is so easy to circumvent, and those who so loudly trumpet "personal responsibility" are the ones who seem to object the most to being responsible when it comes to private gun sales.

Why do you want it to be easy for felons and loonies to buy guns?

And your numerous examples backing your assurtions are being waited for.

In the mean time

why do you wish to take a constitutional rights away from law abiding citizens?

I take it that you didn't bother to read the Heller decision.

Of course I did

But I didn't realize those like you with your twisted sick views would want to impose your idea of rights on the rest of us.

Go figure.

My bad

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[normiss 801]

FINALLY!
You agree that you will refer to some people as "nutter" or "loonie" with no clear LEGAL and / or MEDICALLY DECLARED definition of or psychiatric assessment.

Are we left to assume that if some random citizen claims one to be "loonie" they are then placed on the "No Buy Gun List"?

Now about those rights.....

I have NEVER said nor implied in any manner that I wanted it to be easy for felons and "loonies" (whatever the hell that is) to buy guns.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I would be much more OK with expanding the list of crimes that would put you on the no-purchase list. Violent misdemeanors, for example.

Would you be just as willing to REMOVE non-violent felons from the no-gun list?
For example, an accountant who embezzled money, served his time, and paid restitution?