Mental health gun law

[normiss 798]

So if we extended this to say, someone attending AA meetings, do you think they should have their cars taken away?

[quade 4]

normiss

So if we extended this to say, someone attending AA meetings, do you think they should have their cars taken away?

If a person with government authorization determines they are drunk -- absolutely.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,990]

>So if we extended this to say, someone attending AA meetings, do you think they
>should have their cars taken away?

Just attending AA meetings but not driving drunk? No.

If they are suicidal and are in imminent danger of harming themselves? Yes.

[champu 1]

quade

The issue is, when people say there is a gun problem in this country, pro-gun folks reply, "it's not a gun issue; it's a problem of crazy people with guns issue."

Then when people try to pass laws to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people, pro-gun folks reply, "oh, but you can't take guns out of the hands of crazy people."

It's stupid.

We have to separate people adjudicated as dangerously mentally ill from having guns. We can't let them have the guns simply because they first turned themselves in. That's stupid.

Nobody is arguing that adjudicated mentally ill should have guns. All people are saying regarding this law is, "Expect not to achieve the result you desire."

It's similar to the parental notification laws for female minors getting an abortion. I'm against the laws, but that doesn't mean I encourage teens to get knocked up more frequently or that they should hide it from their parents if they do.

kelpdiver

A particularly self aware person might give his gun to a friend for safekeeping, but a lot of mental health issues are cyclical and he may ask for it back on a higher moment and be back to same position.

He better run a background check on the friend first.

[Southern_Man 0]

If this passes you will have less people seeking treatment. That includes voluntary admissions, but it is more sweeping than that. You will see less people willing to seek outpatient therapy, less people willing to talk honestly w/ their doctor about any problems they are having, less people willing to take psych meds.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

>Are you saying that if a person is contemplating suicide, that denying him the ability
>to purchase a gun will prevent the suicide?

No - but it will make it a lot more difficult. And in many cases it is worthwhile making it much more difficult for someone to kill themselves. (Or drive drunk, or kill other people etc etc.)

Hmmm. So a guy contemplates suicide. He voluntarily admits himself to a hospital. He is released when it is determined that he is no longer and immediate threat to himself or anybody else. So take his guns so he can't hurt himself with them even though he doesn't want to hurt himself anymore.

The logic is impeccable.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 4]

That's not what is being proposed in the law.

You said you read it. Don't be disingenuous.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[DiverMike 5]

I am all for protecting individual rights, but this doesn't appear to be all that oppressive.


You have to be an imminent danger, would have been involuntarily committed anyway, and seen a statement indicating you know you will give up your right to own a gun:

Quote

(A) An examining physician found that the person is an
imminent danger to himself or herself or others.
(B) The examining physician certified that if the person
did not agree to voluntary treatment, a petition for involuntary
outpatient or inpatient treatment would have been filed under s.
394.463(2)(i)4., or the examining physician certified that a
petition was filed and the person subsequently agreed to
voluntary treatment prior to a court hearing on the petition.
(C) Before agreeing to voluntary treatment, the person
received written notice of that finding and certification, and
written notice that as a result of such finding he or she may
be prohibited from purchasing a firearm

When you are no longer crazy, you can petition to get the right to carry a weapon back:

Quote

The court shall grant the relief requested in the petition if the court finds, based on the evidence presented with respect to the petitioner's reputation, the petitioner's mental health record and, if applicable, criminal history record, the circumstances surrounding the firearm disability,and any other evidence in the record, that the petitioner will not be likely to act in a manner that is dangerous to public safety and that granting the relief would not be contrary to the public interest.

For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

[normiss 798]

I'm more impressed with the lack of a process for getting OFF "The List".

[champu 1]

You're missing the point. Quade actually gave a really good summary of the bill upthread...

quade

It's to close a loophole wherein ... seeking help was the equivalent of a get out of jail free card.

The problem is that you can't treat this as a loophole that is being closed. That's absurd. You can't pass a law like this and expect everyone's behavior to remain the same except now you'll get to take away the guns of those you "catch."

Attempting to salvage the drunk driving analogy again... Imagine mandating that all commercially available breathalyzers that you could voluntarily buy had a sim card in them, and if you blow over the limit into them it alerts authorities, they take your license and your car and destroy them, but you can petition to get your license back if you can show you're not drunk anymore.

That's not going to improve the rate of drunk driving accidents, it's going to tank the sale of breathalyzers.

[kelpdiver 2]

DiverMike

I am all for protecting individual rights, but this doesn't appear to be all that oppressive.

The discussion is less about rights (other than the vague process for getting out of the situation) and more about the consequences of the bill. If you ignore the negative consequences and just focus on the successes it will provide, it seems fine. A lot of bad legislation looks great when you ignore the costs side.

[quade 4]

champu

Attempting to salvage the drunk driving analogy again... Imagine mandating that all commercially available breathalyzers that you could voluntarily buy had a sim card in them, and if you blow over the limit into them it alerts authorities, they take your license and your car and destroy them, but you can petition to get your license back if you can show you're not drunk anymore.

That's not going to improve the rate of drunk driving accidents, it's going to tank the sale of breathalyzers.

The problem with your analogy and hypothetical is it doesn't work at all.

Being drunk is an extremely temporary condition. You could blow a 0.1 today and be completely sober in 24 hours. It's also not indicative of whether or not you have a drinking problem, only the amount of alcohol in your blood at the time of the test.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

quade

That's not what is being proposed in the law.

You said you read it. Don't be disingenuous.

It's policy based, as well.

Here's a question, Paul: if a person has been determined to be a danger, that person is held in the hospital. When that person is deemed to no longer be a danger, that person is released, correct?

So if a person is a danger, then why is the person released?

Explain the logic (not the feeling) - make the logical nexus between preventing a person who is "not an immediate danger" (a term which describes you, too, Paul) from obtaining a firearm. Especially from a person who has committed no crime.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[champu 1]

quade

***Attempting to salvage the drunk driving analogy again... Imagine mandating that all commercially available breathalyzers that you could voluntarily buy had a sim card in them, and if you blow over the limit into them it alerts authorities, they take your license and your car and destroy them, but you can petition to get your license back if you can show you're not drunk anymore.

That's not going to improve the rate of drunk driving accidents, it's going to tank the sale of breathalyzers.

The problem with your analogy and hypothetical is it doesn't work at all.

Being drunk is an extremely temporary condition. You could blow a 0.1 today and be completely sober in 24 hours. It's also not indicative of whether or not you have a drinking problem, only the amount of alcohol in your blood at the time of the test.

The problems with the analogy extend beyond the fact that being drunk is "extremely temporary" while mental conditions may merely be "temporary" but It's not my analogy so I don't really feel like defending it or propping it up further. I've already pointed out the issue with comparing a psychological evaluation with a BAC measurement in a previous thread and you clearly don't care for my opinion on that matter.

The issue in this thread that I'm more concerned about is the portion of my post you didn't quote.

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]Being drunk is an extremely temporary condition.

[quade 4]

lawrocket

You really don't know much about alcoholism, do you?

Enough to know you're attempting to make a bullshit false equivalency based on shitty set theory.

Not all drunks are alcoholics.
In fact, not even all alcoholics are drunk.

Deal with it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,990]

>It's actually, to me, quite a fine comparison.

?? An alcoholic is not impaired if he does not drink. The disease of alcoholism makes it very, very difficult to NOT drink, and that is often a very debilitating problem.

A person who suffers from clinical depression has no choice in the matter. They become depressed, nonfunctional, sometimes even suicidal without doing anything to direcyly cause that condition.

They are fundamentally very different.

[Kennedy 0]

Have you ever looked at Form 4473?

BATFE Form 4473, #11, part E

Quote

e. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?

Now, after the invocation or prayer, how is it AA and NA folks introduce themselves? I'm pretty sure it's something along the lines of "Hi, my name is ________, and I'm an addict."

So do you think everyone in NA or AA should lose the right/legal ability to purchase a firearm?

Should all doctors be required to report anyone undergoing treatment for addiction to a federal authority for entry into the NICS denial database?

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

[quade 4]

Another false equivalency.

Alcohol is not considered a "controlled substance."

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[normiss 798]

I would like to know exactly which prescriptions will be on this list of disqualifying drugs will get your weapons taken from you.

[quade 4]

normiss

I would like to know exactly which prescriptions will be on this list of disqualifying drugs will get your weapons taken from you.

That's a fair question. I doubt drugs being used to treat are the only factors involved, but if there is a list of ones that would be considered prima facie evidence of disqualification to own, then it would be a good idea to publish it along with the statute.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[normiss 798]

I know there have been prescribed drugs with this problem in other areas.
I recall co-workers with a stop smoking / depression drug that could get you in trouble with security clearances.

[RonD1120 62]

billvon

>It's actually, to me, quite a fine comparison.

?? An alcoholic is not impaired if he does not drink. The disease of alcoholism makes it very, very difficult to NOT drink, and that is often a very debilitating problem.

A person who suffers from clinical depression has no choice in the matter. They become depressed, nonfunctional, sometimes even suicidal without doing anything to direcyly cause that condition.

They are fundamentally very different.

Depression can be treated successfully with diet and exercise. A depressed person can will themselves out of the doldrums. Many however do not and, society is not likely to learn about those who do. Usually those suffering from Axis I, Major Depression, are more likely to be suicidal not homicidal.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[Kennedy 0]

I disagree with your statement based on faulty logic, but concede that my point is incorrect because I read the relevant law.

I was reading 21 U.S.C. §802(32)(A). I missed 21 U.S.C. §802(6) which says in part:

Quote

The term does not include distilled spirits, wine, malt beverages, or tobacco, as those terms are defined or used in subtitle E of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

Also, because this is the law, words don't have to mean what they usually mean. Addict is more narrowly defined in this subsection than in the dictionary or medical journals.

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

[DFWAJG 4]

In reality, people are released from the hospital within 72 hours because some jerk who runs the HMOs denies the stay any further no matter what the situation.