No guns for people on meds for mental disease?

[fushigi]

My rules for this thread: no tu quoque. You might not like Arianna Huffington, and you might be able to prove she made illogical arguments in the past, but stick to the evidence for your argument.

I'll start with this quote from her article:

[O]ne school shooter after another was on prescription drugs. Kip Kinkel was taking Prozac. Columbine killer Eric Harris was taking Luvox. Red Lake Indian Reservation shooter Jeff Weise was taking Prozac. James Wilson, who shot 2 elementary school kids in Greenwood, South Carolina, was taking anti-depressants. Conyers, Georgia school shooter T.J. Solomon was on ritalin. Is this just a coincidence? <snip> It's been reported by the New York Times that Cho was on prescription medications. Which ones? Who prescribed them? How long had he been taking them?

Okay, first, let's look at the obvious. These guys were on meds for mental disorders - clearly it could be the MENTAL DISORDER that's the problem, not the drugs. So let's avoid the "post hoc propter hoc" fallacy and focus on the facts:

[A] clinical trial found that Prozac caused mania in 6 percent of the children studied.

Small percentage, but it's there.

Furthermore, taking these meds is evidence of a mental disorder. Even if it is the disorder and it isn't the drugs, perhaps we shouldn't allow the mentally ill to purchase firearms. I pointed this out elsewhere - it's basically Socrates' argument from The Republic: it is UNJUST to give an insane man a sword, even if the sword was his to begin with.

On the other side, we have the standard arguments. Even if we ban sales of guns to the mentally ill, they can buy them illegally. (But how easily is a relevant question.) Also, there are privacy issues involved - suddenly, we'll have to give the FBI access to people's mental health records (they conduct background checks for pre-gun sale screening).

All in all, I'm not overwhelmed by either side. But I have a nagging feeling that restricting gun sales to those on drugs for mental disorder could be a good idea.

fushigi

[StrongHeartsWin]

Agreed, Fushigi. What I am thinking about though is; someone may not be on drugs or mentally unstable when they purchase weapons but develope their psychological problems later, and then they already have their weapons at their disposal.

Over the years I have gone back and forth over the issue of gun control. I look forward to following this thread and am definitely able to be swayed by either side. The other threads on the issue still leads me straddling the fence (hence I have never posted in them -- just lurked), but I have to admit I am leaning towards gun control, or the banning of anything other than weapons used for hunting.

[shawmutt]

It is already against the law, but loopholes are found due to privacy acts.

From atf.gov:

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person --

(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution

The NRA also supports this law.

[fushigi]

But how does the gun seller qualify the customer? Does he have to "act" crazy when he's buying the gun? How would the gun seller know?

Do the FBI already have mental health and medication records? I'd be VERY surprised if they do.

[The Dunedan]

Yes, mental health is screened for in the extensive backgound check required for the purchase of a firearm from an FFL holder. People who have been committed, who have been or are taking certain painkilling drugs and narcotics, or who have been diagnosed with a whole raft of formal disorders are disallowed from purchasing a firearm from an FFL, or from posessing same, since any of the above conditions make them a prohibited posessor. This catagory also includes felons, people dishonorably discharged from the military, most immigrants, minors, people who are the subject of Restraint Orders, and those accused (note; not convicted) of -any- crime of domestic violence. The check is -extremely- thorough. This collossal cock-up in Virgina is literally the first time I've -ever- heard of the NICS system missing something like this. My folks sell guns for a living, so I'm rather intimately familiar with the process involved, since I helped out a fair bit in the shop.

As for the medication issue: I detest Huffington, but she's dead right on this one. Anti-depressant and ADHD drugs have a nasty association with both mania/psychosis in teenagers and school/rampage shootings. A family member was treated for depression in High School: because of the fact that everyone responds to these drugs slightly differently, a fairly standard method of determining which drug will work the best is good ol' trial and error. About three "errors" into this hamfisted process, this family member requested to be taken off the drug immidiately and allowed to withdraw from school, because the drug was producing both suicidal and homicidal thoughts in the periods shortly after ingestion. These drugs are damned dangerous, especially in the chemically-unstable brains of teenagers.

[fushigi]

Wow, I expected some serious dissent on this thread. I wonder what the Libertarians have to say about this... (perhaps they've finally tired of the debate on gun control... NAH not likely )

[Mr.Vicchio]

I would agree to this if it also included being able to drive a car, make legal decisions, drink, vote and the like.

If owning a gun is too hazardous, so should these other life and death and important decisions be taken from you as well.

Why stop with guns? A doped up mad man with a car can do quite a bit of damage if he so chose.

[brien]

But I have a nagging feeling that restricting gun sales to those on drugs for mental disorder could be a good idea.

Whether this is a good idea or not, is probably not really getting to the heart of the debate because it is only logical to restrict people who are proven to have impaired mental abilities and conditions from owning firearms.

Perhaps a better question is how does government come up with a plan to implement the restriction and protect the medical privacy of those who are in treatment? I think this was the fundamental problem the Medical authorities in Va had because they were bound by privacy laws not to share the Cho files with the National Database that approves or rejects applicants for firearms. We need to balance the right to privacy with the right to keep and bear arms. Any suggestions?

[jose]

In Spain you need to get a health certificate from a specialist Doctor for a weapons permit, a police background check, and undergo classes in weapon handling and safety and score at least 50 out of 100 in your shooting test.(ten shots at 25 mtrs)
oh i forgot to add
renewal is every three years
believe it or not we also need a Doctors psychological test to renew a driving permit every ten

[tman_ndsu08]

Make all the laws you want.

Won't stop people from getting guns if they want to.

[The Dunedan]

Note that I never said I thought the above system was lawful, Constitutional, or even a good idea. The notion, however, that getting a gun in the US is an easy or non-invasive process, is in grave error.

[ZNFYRH]

tman,

Way to make a statement that is completely pointless in the context of this thread. Congrats.

jose,

I think that's the way it should be done.

Regarding the whole topic...

It really boils down to whether or not the person possessed the weapon before they were prescribed medication.

If I had the gun already and then got the prescription, should law enforcement be allowed to enter my home and take from me my Constitutional-right-to-own property?

I completely believe that the mentally unstable should not be allowed access to anything that is classified as a weapon. But there are two problems with this:

1. It undermines the Constitution. Regardless of the physical or mental health of a person, they can never be denied their Constitutionally protected rights. Nothing in there states that there are exceptions for citizens who are depressed, manic, or brain-dead.

2. The stigmata attached to those with mental disorders. It's a social distinction that makes life very difficult for a person. You can be depressed because you're parents, spouse, and children all died in an explosion by a terrorist bomber, but if you check a box that says, "Yes, I have suffered from depression," then you have that with you forever. Not only that, but you can be punished for lying on those kinds of questionnaires.

It's one of the bigger cracks in the system through which the truly dangerous and mentally infirm can slip.

[brien]

1. It undermines the Constitution. Regardless of the physical or mental health of a person, they can never be denied their Constitutionally protected rights. Nothing in there states that there are exceptions for citizens who are depressed, manic, or brain-dead.

One can look at it ths way. But so too, we understand that we have the right to free speech, but to shout fire in a crowded theatre is not included in that right because it puts the greater population in that theatre at risk for harm.

Same too for a mentally unstable, lets say the psychotic person, who is not in touch with reality. They can obtain a firearm legally and then go out of the store and shoot the first group of people he sees because a psychotic episode forces them to kill? There can be reasonable restrictions on the legality of the possession of firearms under the 2nd Amendment, just as there are for the 1st Amendment. I think being of sound mind is a reasonable one.

[ZNFYRH]

brien,

Naturally, I agree with your counterpoint to my statement. There are cases where one has the freedom to do something, but isn't free from consequences.

But the example you give of the psychotic person having an episode and killing people is one of the unfortunate slipped-through-the-cracks incidents that occurred in Virginia.

How do you assess if a person is still mentally unstable... or if they have been cured?

You really can't. So do you restrict the rights of everyone with that history in the hopes of eliminating the dangerous ones while infringing the ones who are safe? Or do you risk the danger of the truly unstable so that those who have recovered can enjoy full freedoms as an American citizen?

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Way to make a statement that is completely pointless in the context of this thread.

It's exactly to the point.


Laws limiting gun ownership will never be able to limit gun use.

[ZNFYRH]

tman,

Okay, I'll bite...

If a law limits gun ownership, would it limit gun use by law-abiding citizens?

The answer is yes.

Therefore, your statement is incorrect.

[fushigi]

Quote by: brien Perhaps a better question is how does government come up with a plan to implement the restriction and protect the medical privacy of those who are in treatment? <snip> We need to balance the right to privacy with the right to keep and bear arms. Any suggestions?

Well, I could easily turn that around and say we need to balance the right of the mentally ill to own firearms and the right of their potential victims to live.

As far as privacy goes, only the rights of those with mental disorders would be infringed on, and they're the target group.

[Technosoul]

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.

[fushigi]

Quote by: Technosoul 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 submisstions 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.

Ah I get it. (You often make good points, but I have to wait until the end of your argument to see it. It'd be easier for me if you did the old thesis-supporting arguments-conclusion bit.)

But I see what you mean. Register the drug while you're taking it, then when you go off it, un-register it.

It's actually a great idea. Wouldn't cost too much for enforcement (just add a column to the FBI personnel database, have psychotherapists submit notice to the FBI when they start a patient on a new anti-psychotic/anti-depression drug treatment, and Jed at the gun shop doesn't have any more work to do either.)

[Technosoul]

Quote by: fushigi Ah I get it. (You often make good points, but I have to wait until the end of your argument to see it. It'd be easier for me if you did the old thesis-supporting arguments-conclusion bit.) But I see what you mean. Register the drug while you're taking it, then when you go off it, un-register it. It's actually a great idea. Wouldn't cost too much for enforcement (just add a column to the FBI personnel database, have psychotherapists submit notice to the FBI when they start a patient on a new anti-psychotic/anti-depression drug treatment, and Jed at the gun shop doesn't have any more work to do either.)

I did not go to collage and do not know how to prepare one of those "thesis-supporting arguments-conclusion" writings.

Sorry about that. I am just into coming up with an idea.

We register a car partly because we are driving it around in public, and so we must prove it is smog-safe and so that if we "hit and run" the police can track us down (in theory). The other reason is so we can have proof of ownership to prevent car thefts (in theory).

Now my wife a short time ago fainted at work and went to a doctor to make use everything was okay. The doctor promptly reported the fainting spell incident to the DMV and she could not drive again until all the medical tests came back that would prove she had no medical problems that might cause her to faint while driving. Medical privacy was violated because of that law. Luckly she had no medical problem and had fainted for another reason (long story so will not say why).
You cannot drive using a number of prescription drugs and can get into trouble if you do, just like if you drink booze. Booze addiction is a medical problem according to phychology experts.

Now if the law can control your right to use your own registered vehicle then I guess they can control your right to bear arms for the same reasons.

I came up with the drug registration idea to get around our right for medical pravicy.

Now for my counter argument of my own idea.

If someone has a history of drug abuse (unlawful) and of "drinking and driving" then then should not the FBI ban them from buying dangerous weapons as well. If you use a card to buy beer the FBI could find out if you shoud be allowed to own a gun, a car, or other dangerous item.
Once the prescription drug and gun control laws are effected it could spread to cars and other things you might wish to buy. But if you had a court case about causing a beer relatied problem or got busted for unlawful drugs then no car and no gun. As well as those dangerous prescription drugs could ban you from guns. Point is if you cannot drive on drugs you cannot shoot guns on drugs. But the other laws are enforced only after you violate them, and it would be too late if a prescription drug user shoots a lot of people. We would not send them to re-hab now would we?

Warning - do not drive heavey equipment or use a gun while taking this medicaton. Hmm? Such notices are not enough when it comes to preventing those school shootings.

Guns, drugs, and cars all can be dangerous as well as useful. We cannot outlaw depression or being the bully kid or the emotions of rage, fear, and so forth. These things all exsist in society and controlling them with educational warnings, laws, permits, and so forth cannot (or has not in the past) completly solved the problems they might represent.

Laws are cages where we try to keep the beast locked up. We have turned society into a Zoo of cages and yet we dream of a better society, where we are all free like the birds in the trees. (excuse my symoblism).

And so the only real solution cannot come by way of laws on the outside, but by a massive change in attitudes on the inside of the people. We do not know how to effect such a major transformaton.
Or else we know how but cannot get folks to conform to the notions.

Advocating fairness in all matters, equality as a standard of personal choice and free will, respecting one another, not poking fun at people, and a few other golden rules as our mental objectives can solve 99 percent of these problems if everyone was willing to adopt those attitudes and motives from their heart and not out of fear of the FBI.

But agian, effecting such idealisms seems fruitless due to massive non-conformity and lack of co-operation, and because of countering influences.

And so we are pretty much stuck with things as they are in society and new regulations will just mean more taxes. Although they might help a little bit.