| I would agree that the drugs mentioned for treatments of mental problems are linked to those shootings, but what if they did not take the pills, would they still be mentially depressed (or whatever) and thusly end up shooting at people? Or would they be "safe" without treatment?
Is the treatment wrong and should we ban the pills instead of the guns?
And what about unlawful drugs and their impact no gun murders?
Why not drug the Jocks and the mean Bully who causes others to have insecurity problems that they feel need revenging? Create a anit-jock drug so that we treat the root of the problem? Aha - that was my most radical idea on this topic. Have the teachers watch for signs of "bullyness or Jockism" and then take action by turning them over to any authority that can "help them" overcome that mental disorder? Being on the football team or wearing a "letter jacket" is a sure sign of trouble brewing.
Now back to the real solutions the normal folks are reviewing.
I think if a doctor prescribes any preprescription that might result in the patient being a threat to others or to society then it should be made public to their family, their school or work place, and at least to the FBI or other law enforcement agency. If you arrive at a hospital with a bullet in your chest they will inform the police, if a child arrives at school with signs of child abuse, the authorities are notified, by law. Sometimes it takes a village (not only to raise a child) but to monitor protential problems and some drugs are known to be just that, a potential problem to society. We have the right to be made aware of that danger and who is using them.
However only data about potentially dangerous drugs should be released to the FBI or other sources on a need-to-know bases. And that data should be used to determine a persons right to buy a gun as well as the right to bear arms. (being they did not have such drugs when those rights were created by the founding fathers). Just "White Lightening".
Here is my problem for maintaining mental heath records as being private.
You can get a PHD and still be a quack. I do not want to give to much power to phychology to control people or our life. Those guys write all kinds of books about abnormal behavior and they come up with wild speculations about what causes what. They can claim that this or that is a sure sign that you fit the M.O. for some sort of odd behavorism, and they are not always right because it is partly specualtion and sometimes they missinterpret the data of a study. Example: If you have a playboy magizene in your bathroom that sign that you might be guilty of raping someone or some other sex crime, according to some "expert" profilers.
Now do you want the FBI rounding you up or preventing you from having the freedoms allowed to others because the lastest phychological study about this or that kind of criminal behavorism, it's causes and effects.
Hey! He had a dominating mother and might be a sexual pervert, we better force him to get approved by a shrink before he can ... whatever?
Get the point? If we allow those so-called phychological experts to much power as an authority then kiss court room justice good bye along with some of your private freedoms. Once they are all powerful the phychology experts could be used as an resource to ban all your guns (from everyone) simply because they came out with some new study saying so which was funded by governmental grant money, Get it? They got the medical industry to ban cigarettes in most public places in many states due to their speculative reports, why not guns? It could happen also if phychology get as much power as that of those medical experts who deal in ailments of the body.
If we must register gun ownership with the FBI (as a potentally dangerous item) then we should also (be forced to) register any drug that might have dangerous effects or results.
In order for the doctor to prescribe the drug the user must register it with the FBI. If he wishes not to register the drug then he cannot buy it and the doctor cannot prescribe it to that person. When the drug is registered they do not have to tell why it is being prescribed in order to keep medical data private. Just like you do not have to state why you are buying a gun to have it registered with the FBI.
Both submissions could then be crossed refferenced. If you got the durg registered then you cannot buy the gun, and if you have a gun registered you cannot buy the drug. But they would need a way for people get things un-registered as well.
Being that prescriptions are "controlled substances" then we cannot claim they are our "right" to have. So here is my solution.
Resister dangerous drugs just like you do your gun or your car. |