TexasCHLforum.com

ok, I'm sure this guy is going to get fired for not toeing the "mainstream media" line.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/17/opinion/g ... ?hpt=hp_t1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't agree with everything he's said in the past, but this is an opinion piece that at least shows some journalistic integrity.

Interesting.

We need to seriously have a mental health registry. A place for professionals to list names that have been officially put on a mental health watch.

CHLLady wrote:Interesting.

We need to seriously have a mental health registry. A place for professionals to list names that have been officially put on a mental health watch.

That's a slippery slope... They could declare sleep disorders a mental illness and put you on it with no recourse. Any foot in the door gives them a mechanism to twist and reshape law into what they want.

No one wants mentally ill people running around society armed but the alternative suggestions that have been presented don't look much more appealing, at least to me.

My 2 cents worth.

Larry

CHLLady wrote:Interesting.

We need to seriously have a mental health registry. A place for professionals to list names that have been officially put on a mental health watch.

Be careful with that idea. Does the name Adolph Hitler ring any bells?

yeh, what exactly is a mental disorder? and how do you "get better"?

and maybe one person with and anxiety disorder is fine to carry, but another isn't, but with medication they will be, or with patience and breathing exercises they will be, or with a diet change, or maturity or whatever....

and a mommy just had a baby and may have post-partum depression, maybe for one it last 3 weeks, and another it last 6 months and for one it's not too bad and for another it's more serious,

but you're saying that alllll of these need to be put on a list somewhere? really?

first of all I'm not sure that would survive the ACLU's lawsuit that would most certainly be brought up, I hope, because it would break every HIPA law written. And secondly it would be the very reason the guy who liked guns with an anxiety issue or the woman with a CHL and with ppd wouldn't want to go to the dr.

I question the 900 mass shooting deaths in the last seven years. The article quoted USA Today's "analysis" of FBI data which sends up red flags. I don't know how to look up data that would be specific to mass shootings, but I don't recall that many in the last seven years. That means every year for the last 7 years there were 10. 7 people killed in mass shootings every month. I don't believe it.

puma guy wrote:I question the 900 mass shooting deaths in the last seven years. The article quoted USA Today's "analysis" of FBI data which sends up red flags. I don't know how to look up data that would be specific to mass shootings, but I don't recall that many in the last seven years. That means every year for the last 7 years there were 10. 7 people killed in mass shootings every month. I don't believe it.

seems to me that after Sandy Hook someone wrote an article and someone else did some research that sparked a question and the answer was that the FBI defines a "mass shooting" as more that 3 dead....which means that New Life wasn't a "mass shooting" even though it was part 2 of his shooting spree

puma guy wrote:I question the 900 mass shooting deaths in the last seven years. The article quoted USA Today's "analysis" of FBI data which sends up red flags. I don't know how to look up data that would be specific to mass shootings, but I don't recall that many in the last seven years. That means every year for the last 7 years there were 10. 7 people killed in mass shootings every month. I don't believe it.

That stat is "cooked". I read a different stat earlier (I'll post the link if I can find it) that I believe said 547 in the past 30 years. Not a tiny number but not 900 in 7 years, either.

And I found it, more straightforward article than you would think, too...Bloomberg, of all places. And I even got the number right.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-1 ... rders.html

I agree that the mental health thing is a VERY slippery slope, but keep this in mind: After all these incidents have taken place, and then people that know the perp are asked, they almost unanimously say, "Yeah, that doesn't surprise me much." These people are nutcases that were ALLOWED to slip out of the system, turned into celebrities when they committed their crime, and then (for those that lived) are coddled forever by the broken justice system.

OldCannon wrote:I agree that the mental health thing is a VERY slippery slope, but keep this in mind: After all these incidents have taken place, and then people that know the perp are asked, they almost unanimously say, "Yeah, that doesn't surprise me much." These people are nutcases that were ALLOWED to slip out of the system, turned into celebrities when they committed their crime, and then (for those that lived) are coddled forever by the broken justice system.

but that's because they are looking at it with eyes open....would they, if asked last week, have said "yes, that guy will certainly go off and shoot up is office?" no, they probably would have said, "nah, he's maybe a little off, but he's harmless as a mouse"

SewTexas wrote:

OldCannon wrote:I agree that the mental health thing is a VERY slippery slope, but keep this in mind: After all these incidents have taken place, and then people that know the perp are asked, they almost unanimously say, "Yeah, that doesn't surprise me much." These people are nutcases that were ALLOWED to slip out of the system, turned into celebrities when they committed their crime, and then (for those that lived) are coddled forever by the broken justice system.

but that's because they are looking at it with eyes open....would they, if asked last week, have said "yes, that guy will certainly go off and shoot up is office?" no, they probably would have said, "nah, he's maybe a little off, but he's harmless as a mouse"

True, but all these seemed...preventable, you know? I agree that turning shrinks into gun ownership gatekeepers is a VERY bad idea.

Mental health screenings is indeed a slippery slope. Who among us would wish for someone else to determine our fate -- someone who may have an agenda counter to ours? In a fallen world, there is no simple panacea.

Our society keeps stressing political correctness while growing more and more intolerant. New laws are enacted every year -- just to "correct" bad previously enacted ones. All these "solutions" do is gradually reduce liberty and responsibility, killing the spirit of the country and is people with a thousand tiny cuts. Things that need to be stressed instead -- moral absolutes, individual liberty, responsibility and accountability.

The folks that perpetrated these mass shooting incidents were no doubt mentally "off". Even so, if they were faced with 50/50 or better odds of meeting armed resistance, perhaps resulting in their death, some of them may not have even decided it was "worth" it to go on their rampage.

Ok so here is a thought wouldn't then just as it opens a door for the gov't to try and control who gets what even more than now but it would work for the criminals themselves cause who in there right mind does these things anyway.

I have always laughed at the thought that some guy walks into a store shoots someone takes the money and runs then says in his defense I am mentally ill. Well I got a news flash for him. You bet your mentally ill cause who would do such a thing to start with. I consider myself to be sane (at least in the clinical sense). So.... who's going to determine these things at what point are you not fit to purchase and legally own a firearm.

Also just cause he/she is "fine" now and buys a firearm legally then say maybe a few years or even a few days down the road has some kind of break and just goes crazy. This would be a first offense and now they are deemed crazy? That brings us full circle. You'll here is first on 11 at 5pm subject found unfit to stand trial due to mental illness but wait weren't we already screening for that?

The best and in my mind the only way to prevent this sort of thing is to be vigilant. Watch what is going on around you and don't be afraid to drop a dime if you see something that even if it's only slightly strange check it out or, if you think you should, call the authorities and have then poke around a bit. I think most of this could be prevented. Even if they don't find anything and nothing comes of something you should take some solace in knowing you did the right thing.

CHLLady wrote:We need to seriously have a mental health registry. A place for professionals to list names that have been officially put on a mental health watch.

I'd like to see the mentally unfit lose firearms purchase right also. Yes, I just said that.
The devil is in the details. How do you do it? I'll give you a great example of how it's hard to implement:

The FAA qualifies pilots every X years (depending on age) and we've got to submit all medical history in the prior period. Every doctor visit, every pill, every prescription, even OTC stuff. I'm not talking about airline pilots here. I'm talking about "hobbyists" that fly on the occasional weekend and can be selective about when to fly. Last time I submitted, I got restricted because my medical history included a stiff neck (3x in the last 5 years). I had to spend additional money - not covered by insurance - getting additional medial opinions and X-rays that support the fact that my condition wasn't chronic and that I had no restricted movement. It was less than $1000, but still...

Guess what? I don't go to the doctor if I'm sore. I don't see the chiropractor. I don't see a physical therapist. Why not? Because I know what *might* happen if I have another incident of a sore neck on record. I avoid the doctor if I'm sick because it's something that I've got to keep track of for the next X years.

It's going to be hard to find a mental health restriction that isn't somewhat arbitrary. Or that can't be abused by an ill-intending 3rd party such as an ex-husband or wife... Again, I'm for it, but I haven't thought of a way to implement it that I could support.

Once you're on this registry, can you ever get off? Is it like the sex offender registry? I'd bet that most of us in our lifetimes will go through a period of emotional imbalance at least once... What's the percentage of the US population that has taken an anti-depressant in their lifetime? Should that ban them from firearms for life?