DC shooter and mental illness

[Byron]

The guy had a history of mental illness, but passed the Brady instant check and walked out with a gun. HCI calls this a "gigantic loophole". The form asks: "Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?" Unlike for criminal records, there is no database to check, so Mr. Nutter can just answer "No".

Was this guy ever actually committed? Or adjudicated? If not, what's the issue? Many argue that mental and physical disease need to have similar status, but you can be cured of a physical disease. Does the question on the form imply that mental problems can never really be cured, so it's like Original Sin as far as owning a firearm goes? That doesn't seem fair, but on the other hand, this fellow was clearly not quite right mentally, and should not have had a gun.

This is a tough but important issue, because many of the outcries for gun control have followed shootings by mentally deranged people (e.g., UK and Australia). It's strongly in our interest to keep guns out of the hands of nutcases, but how do you do it?

 

[AR-10]

I would not like the idea of yearly "mental wellness" testing as a condition of being able to keep a gun collection I may have been adding to for 20 or 30 years. On the other hand, if someone develops a serious mental illness it would be comforting to know he won't be bringing his toys to work with him some day.

One question would be- where do you draw the line? Which "brand" of mental instability would warrant the disarming of a gun owner? I know someone who has had mental issues for years. This person will not see a shrink for fear of being labeled crazy. Functional,harmless,well-meaning. But their paranoia of being labeled less than balanced is justified.

So,where do you draw the line? After all, you just may be a gun nut.

 

[echo3mike]

Strictly from a clinical perspective, this person meets the criteria for several disorders listed in the DSM IV, the diagnostic manual for mental health professionals. One of the big problems with the DSM is that a person can meet a single criteria, ( and most of us do), but not have a "mental illness" . Several criteria, ( DSMese for symptom), must be met for a person to be diagnosed with a particular illness. Several symptoms are found in multiple illness catagories, and a few are illness specific. So, it's difficult to come out and say "Yes, this pt. has X" . It's usually pretty fuzzy.

Of course, that part about falsifying federal firearms forms and that in and of itself being a felony, well that just adds to it, now doesn't it?

 

[denfoote]

Double post. Sorry!!!

 

[denfoote]

It sems to me that every time some nut shoots up something, he is "found" to have a "history" of mental illness. I think that like so many other things the media, and their fellow criminals HCL, says, this is pure socialist S-!T.

Some groups exist only because the Constitution lets them live!!!!!!

 

[JimR]

The Soviets threw many into "mental hospitals". You had to be crazy to disagree with the State, right?

 

[Ed Brunner]

Most people are considered crazy by some standard.

 

[Hal]

Mr. Nutter can:

Lie on the form.
Steal a gun.
Buy a gun via private sale.
Chose not to use a gun and use a car to say, drive though a pre-school.
Use a propane bomb.
etcetara, etcetera, etcetera.

Like it or not, agree or not, the rights we enjoy also apply to the crazies, up until the point they pose a danger to themselves or others. Look at the thread about the guy in the truck in Kansas. According to the story, he's nutty as a fruitcake. His particular obsession seems to be women in cars. Who knows how many hours he spent driving the roads fantisizing about the women he passed? The law is clear. You' cant lock him up for evil thoughts! Well. at least not as of 7:something AM Feb. 10th 2001. It's as common a trap to think that someone with a mental illness is violently oriented, and therefore has to be deprived of certain rights. Those same laws that would legally block a violently oriented person, would also block someone without any violent tendancies.
My personal point of view is that it's impossible to insure that someone of ANY mental, physical or emotional state isn't capable of being armed at ANY point. I arm myself to meet that threat. See where I'm going? I don't try to limit anyones access since it's a 100% futile attempt. I put the responsibility to meet any threat on MY shoulders. Any preemtive law you can think of simply just does not work.
Also, once you start, where do you draw the line to stop? Severe schizo or manic depressive? Ever been around a diabetic who's sugar count was way up there? When my late mom's sugar went over 300 it was time to run for cover. Does that mean mandatory blood tests every four hours for everyone, or just another line on the 4473?
Common sense says that ANYONE that wants to work a bad deed is going to find the means to do it. Passing laws in an attempt to prevent an act is a waste of time and effort.

 

[MADISON]

Noboody inside was ever in any danger.

Because Presidenr Bush and noboody inside the WhiteHouse was ever in danger, I take a different view.

Presidenr Bush should take the time to visit the shoter in the hospital. If he is competent, then Bush should do everything he can to help the man. Change the man with NOTHING!