HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » We really need a national...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 02:17 PM

 

We really need a national mental health database that can be accessed

for gun purchase background checks.

UMD shooter bought guns despite mental illness

(WUSA) - Dayvon Green was a brilliant engineering University of Maryland grad student who was mentally ill and still bought guns legally.

He bought a 9mm handgun legally last year and just a month ago legally purchased an UZI assault style pistol. He had both weapons with him when he lit fires, killed one roommate, wounded another, and then turned the 9mm on himself.

In Maryland, only people who have been committed to a state hospital for 30 days or more, or a judge rules are incompetent, or not criminally responsible, are reported to the gun database.

Thousands of others treated by their own doctors for major mental illnesses are never reported to gun licensing authorities, apparently Dayvon Green was among them.


http://www.9news.com/news/world/317020/347/UMD-shooter-bought-guns-despite-mental-illness

68 replies, 2291 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 68 replies Author Time Post
Reply We really need a national mental health database that can be accessed (Original post)
Leslie Valley Feb 2013 OP
Duer 157099 Feb 2013 #1
Glaug-Eldare Feb 2013 #2
zipplewrath Feb 2013 #11
Glaug-Eldare Feb 2013 #17
zipplewrath Feb 2013 #36
meaculpa2011 Feb 2013 #37
legaleagle_45 Feb 2013 #53
zipplewrath Feb 2013 #68
Posteritatis Feb 2013 #23
lumberjack_jeff Feb 2013 #45
snooper2 Feb 2013 #48
cali Feb 2013 #3
Puzzledtraveller Feb 2013 #4
didact Feb 2013 #55
NightWatcher Feb 2013 #5
Glaug-Eldare Feb 2013 #7
Dreamer Tatum Feb 2013 #6
Are_grits_groceries Feb 2013 #8
Egalitarian Thug Feb 2013 #9
cbayer Feb 2013 #15
cbdo2007 Feb 2013 #10
nolabear Feb 2013 #12
sibelian Feb 2013 #20
hack89 Feb 2013 #22
nolabear Feb 2013 #34
loyalsister Feb 2013 #27
nolabear Feb 2013 #35
loyalsister Feb 2013 #43
nolabear Feb 2013 #67
cbdo2007 Feb 2013 #39
pipi_k Feb 2013 #40
nolabear Feb 2013 #60
tallahasseedem Feb 2013 #62
cliffordu Feb 2013 #66
City Lights Feb 2013 #13
cbayer Feb 2013 #14
lynne Feb 2013 #16
loyalsister Feb 2013 #28
cbayer Feb 2013 #31
Waltons_Mtn Feb 2013 #54
loyalsister Feb 2013 #56
Waltons_Mtn Feb 2013 #59
pipi_k Feb 2013 #18
markpkessinger Feb 2013 #19
Posteritatis Feb 2013 #25
loyalsister Feb 2013 #29
hack89 Feb 2013 #21
TheKentuckian Feb 2013 #30
Puzzledtraveller Feb 2013 #44
X_Digger Feb 2013 #24
sibelian Feb 2013 #26
Squinch Feb 2013 #32
HereSince1628 Feb 2013 #33
libtodeath Feb 2013 #38
Lady Freedom Returns Feb 2013 #47
Coyotl Feb 2013 #41
SoCalDem Feb 2013 #42
Denninmi Feb 2013 #46
backscatter712 Feb 2013 #49
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #50
HereSince1628 Feb 2013 #63
OceanEcosystem Feb 2013 #51
patrice Feb 2013 #52
patrice Feb 2013 #57
patrice Feb 2013 #58
Hoyt Feb 2013 #61
cliffordu Feb 2013 #64
Sivafae Feb 2013 #65

Response to Leslie Valley (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 02:22 PM

1. If nothing else, that would be a great way to stop people from seeking help

It is hard enough as it is to get some people the help they need. Not sure this singling out is going to help anything further, except to make them even less likely to seek help. Don't you think?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duer 157099 (Reply #1)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 03:00 PM

2. Bingo. Due process is key.

Every patient is an individual, and every case is unique. Mental illness varies in type, severity, symptoms, duration, treatment, compliance with treatment, success, complications... A litmus test is not acceptable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 04:42 PM

11. "Due process" is a legal term

The problem here is that we deal with mental illness as a "legal" issue. It's a medical issue. It needs to be handled as such.

You get "physicals" to participate in sports. There's no "national database" for that, you just go get one. You have your eyes checked before you get a driver license. We don't database optical perscriptions. You have a pilots license, you have to have an annual physical.

You want to buy a guy, you have to get your permit signed by a mental health professional. They don't database this, you just bring it it. You want to keep it? Every year you have to "renew" your certification.

But it ain't gonna happen because the gun folks will go nuts. (And half the cops probably wouldn't pass an MMPI or any other test).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #11)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 04:55 PM

17. That's a pretty egregious violation of civil rights.

For one thing, no mental health professional is going to accept legal liability for somebody's actions, especially without an extensive history with that person. Getting a permission slip from the doctor would be extremely expensive, time-consuming, completely subjective, and dependent on the doctor's own political views. Then again, that's the intent of requiring a permission slip for a civil right -- to deny it without "denying" it.

Unless you don't place any liability on the doctor, in which case they'll give 'em away for $10.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #17)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 08:24 AM

36. So the devil is in the details

There is no doubt, just as with the medical certificates we require for pilots, that there is an opportunity for "doctor shopping". The doctor isn't "liable" for what happens after he gives the physical. He's required to administer some tests per some protocols and evaluate the results.

One could ask professionals to do something similar here. It could be something as simple as an MMPI, to something that might include some personal "history" (employment review, academic review, etc.) The real key to the whole process would be, just like all the other medical tests we take, there'd be no "databasing". I have a drivers license, and it might indicate if I'm required to wear corrective lenses while driving. But there is no "optometry database" such that my vision can be checked by multiple agencies to determine how severe my vision issues are. No one can do a "background check" during employment to see if I need my vision corrected. Furthermore, once I have Lasik, and get tested again for my vision, there is no history maintained of past vision issues. No one can see that 15 years ago I had corrected vision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #11)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 08:35 AM

37. Have you invented an eye chart...

that will certify that you are mentally fit?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #11)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:30 PM

53. Sounds good but wont work

get your permit signed by a mental health professional.


Just like with prescription pot, there will be a "mental health professional" willing to sign the permit for a fee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to legaleagle_45 (Reply #53)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 05:07 PM

68. As there are

Just as there are for Pilots licenses, and sports physicals, etc. There are mental screening tests done for various volunteer and professional positions. At the very least these could be the models for such a methodology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duer 157099 (Reply #1)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 05:25 PM

23. Great way to blacklist them from various other things as well

If such a database were available you can be damned sure that employers would like to take a look at it come hiring time (or layoff time).

But hey, since people like the OP are convinced that "the mentally ill" are monolithically dangerous anyway....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duer 157099 (Reply #1)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 11:44 AM

45. exactly. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duer 157099 (Reply #1)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:12 PM

48. Sure, I won't get help because I'm worried I might not be able to buy a gun someday

methinks that person isn't going to want to get help anyway

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leslie Valley (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 03:04 PM

3. One of the most disturbing things I've ever seen proposed here.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #3)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 03:05 PM

4. ditto

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #3)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:35 PM

55. I'd love to peruse that database*

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leslie Valley (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 03:06 PM

5. Seeking help for depression at 17 years old...have trouble getting a job

when you're 30.

I'm sure this would never be abused.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NightWatcher (Reply #5)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 03:14 PM

7. Or lose your RKBA. Or lose voting rights. Or be refused as a witness.

Lotta reasons to be scared of the doctor's office -- especially his computer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leslie Valley (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 03:08 PM

6. because databases never get hacked or used for evil reasons.

"Say, this guy John Smith just applied for a sales position. Can you run his name through that database when you get home?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leslie Valley (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 03:19 PM

8. No way!

They'd want everybody on it who ever had a problem.
It would be abused to hell and back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leslie Valley (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 03:22 PM

9. We really need national mental health care, first. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #9)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 04:52 PM

15. Yes, at the very least.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leslie Valley (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 04:06 PM

10. So which "major mental illnesses" would you suggest we single out as not being healthy enough to own

a gun?? How many visits would they need to have? Would this be based on their doctor's assessment or just based on their claims history?? There are too many lines there that would need to be drawn that still wouldnt' stop these things from happening.

Therapists should already report people who are a threat to themselves or others and in many cases can have them evaluated in a psych hospital. Beyond that we need to make mental health coverage more affordable and more accessible and move away from our gun and violence obsessed culture as a way to solve problems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leslie Valley (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 04:43 PM

12. As a mental health practitioner I think this is generally pointless and potentially dangerous.

First of all, "mental illness" is a ridiculous, catch-all term that we use for convenience but that is such a wide net it can mean anything on paper from social anxiety to schizophrenia. And any human being can, under the "right" conditions, be in a state of mind that would be considered ill, but might well never be in that state of mind again. Torture, PTSD, lack of sleep, drugs, extreme fear, extreme grief, all of these things can render one in a temporary state of insanity, hence the legal term.

But many people who are genuinely at risk for having the kind of break that, say, Dorner most likely had, suffer from disorders of personality that don't fall under the same category of "mental illness" that bipolar disorder, depression, schizophrenia, etc. do. They may live somewhat dysfunctional lives, but tend to externalize their problems (blame others) and don't often seek treatment until compelled to do so as a result of being forced. The prognosis is in fact poorer than that for the more seriously chemically imbalanced, and sometimes the crumbling of the propped-up personality results in real breaks with reality, or in rages that border on, or even cross into, psychosis. These people might be picked up in mental health screenings but likely will not be. As long as they don't reach that breaking point they hold symptoms somewhat at bay.

But the threat of a database that can be hacked, accessed by people who can use the information to deny jobs, schooling, insurance, adoption, etc. to people who are generally fine but have at one time or another needed help with something (and an insurance company will not cover such help without a diagnosis of some kind) will deter many, many people from getting it, and they will be in far greater danger of resorting to some other way of handling things that can have a very poor outcome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolabear (Reply #12)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 05:14 PM

20. Excellent response, nolabear


Thank you for continuing wisdom on the subject of mental health.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolabear (Reply #12)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 05:19 PM

22. What do you think of NY database

where mental health professionals can report patients deemed to be a threat to themselves or others and prevents them from owning or purchasing guns?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #22)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 09:56 PM

34. I also must by law report a real threat. I don't know about the NY database.

And I'd have to see exactly what it said.

But I have a disclosure statement that I give each patient at the outset and we read it and I explain it. I note that I must report an actual threat to self or other, and known abuse of a child or elder. I also note that feelings of desperation, anger, inability to cope are important to talk about so we can figure out together how to find another way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolabear (Reply #12)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 05:38 PM

27. AA would cease to exist

Even if they weren't able to get a hold of much, the fear that that would happen would prevent people with duel diagnoses from seeking treatment there. I'm not a fan, but it seems to help some people I know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalsister (Reply #27)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 09:58 PM

35. That's why they're anonymous. It's the only way some people can tolerate it.

It's not for everyone but, like you, I have known it to be very helpful for some, and I'm in favor of what works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolabear (Reply #35)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 11:35 AM

43. I know...

But can you see a possibility that if there were a legally codified goal to root out people with mental illnesses AA would come under attack?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalsister (Reply #43)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 03:07 PM

67. Maybe, but it's private, non profit, and likely wouldn't be possible.

There's no way to threaten, and it's possible to dissolve and regroup. Its lack of regulation is both the best and worst thing about AA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolabear (Reply #12)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 10:06 AM

39. I have access to mental health records....

for about 3 million people and I just can't possibly think of a way they could use the data to determine who might be dangerous and who might not be. Like you said, providers are required to report people who are seen as an imminent threat to themselves or others, but otherwise I don't see how they could categorize the other groups rationally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolabear (Reply #12)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 10:29 AM

40. Not a mental health issue, but...

sort of along the lines of people (or an entire company) being denied coverage based on one isolated incident...

At my last job, the owner of a small company wanted to switch from one insurance provider to a different company. We all had to fill out forms listing past illnesses, etc.

Well, years before that, I had a problematic pregnancy which ended with a premature delivery caused by a clostridium infection of the placenta plus premature separation of the placenta (causing severe bleeding).

Not wanting to lie, I included that on my form. Well, by that time I was nearly 40 years old and wasn't about to have any more children. That, number one. Number two...the insurance company wanted a letter from my doctor stating that what happened in 1974 would not happen again.

WTF???

Naturally, no doctor can guarantee something like that, and the insurance company got all asshole-ish about it, and the owner eventually had to go with another company.

The second time my boss told me not to mention that pregnancy, which I did not.

So, in reality, just about anything can be used against someone...I can't even imagine how shitty someone would feel having mental health issues used against him.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipi_k (Reply #40)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 02:13 PM

60. I can't even begin to describe what insurance companies put us and our patients through.

They want us to tell them how long it will take to deal with something, what we will do in order to do it, threaten to put us on "special" lists if we see people more frequently than they deem necessary (note this is all without ever having seen or interacted with the patient), and those lists are the people whose cases they frequently audit and challenge. The lack of realistic conceptualization about what mentally oriented difficulties are and how they can be helped is mind boggling. And it IS a difficult thing, I'm sure, for a for-profit company to claim they insure people for such things and then face how nebulous and individual treatment is. All the more reason to make universal health care work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolabear (Reply #12)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 02:18 PM

62. +1

This should be a OP. This database idea is absolutely horrible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolabear (Reply #12)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 02:28 PM

66. What Nolabear said +1000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leslie Valley (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 04:46 PM

13. IMO, this is a bad idea.

Ripe for abusing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leslie Valley (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 04:51 PM

14. This is a very, very slippery slope.

The disincentives to seek care are already astronomical and the guidelines for what constitutes "dangerous" or can result in involuntary hospitalization vary widely from state to state.

There are also neurological disorders (and others) that can cause someone to have extremely poor judgement, poor impulse control and random acts of aggression.

This is a very bad road to go down, imo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leslie Valley (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 04:53 PM

16. Actually, there is a database. At least for anyone treated through insurance -

- check out the Medical Information Bureau. Of course, the data is to be kept private but this is the era of hacking and wikileaks so I'm not sure there's any guarantee.

http://patients.about.com/od/yourmedicalrecords/a/mib.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lynne (Reply #16)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 05:39 PM

28. HIPPA

There are some pretty strong regulations regarding privacy.

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalsister (Reply #28)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 05:52 PM

31. And very serious consequences for violating it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalsister (Reply #28)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:32 PM

54. My wife is a nurse.

When I go to see her at her office she has to turn off all computer screens and turn over or cover all patients records. Once I asked her why she did that. She told me she could be personally sued if a patient found out I read their name or saw a diagnosis on some document. Serious stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Waltons_Mtn (Reply #54)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 02:01 PM

56. "She told me she could be personally sued"

And rightfully so. I don't see how giving gun retailers medical information would get around HIPPA. Unless people with mental illnesses were reclassified as potential murderers rather than people with a medical problem. That is the ugliest and very possible scenario if the NRA tools get their way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalsister (Reply #56)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 02:10 PM

59. I totally agree.

Frightening!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leslie Valley (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 04:55 PM

18. What about people

with close relatives who have mental health issues?

Like the Newtown, CT shooter.

His mom owned the guns. He had the mental health problems. He got access to those guns.

Please understand that I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your suggestion...just asking a question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leslie Valley (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 04:58 PM

19. Can you say, "unitended consequences?"

At first blush, a proposal like this might sound sensible. But there is already, even today, a great deal of stigma attached to mental illnesss. A database such as you suggest (the idea of which rests on a mistaken notion that mentally ill people are uniquely dangerous), in which the government lists names of people it regards as potentially "dangerous" because they have sought treatment for mental illness, will have the effect of further stigmatizing mental illness, and thus will further stigmatize it, making it more unlikely that people will seek needed help. This is a very dangerous idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Reply #19)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 05:27 PM

25. Most fans of this sort of thing intend those extra consequences.

Someone wanting a registry of a quarter of the population based on their health history with the specific intent of imposing (additional) restrictions on what they can and cannot do, if they say they aren't in favor of stigmatizing mental illness, are lying either to themselves or everyone else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Posteritatis (Reply #25)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 05:44 PM

29. I think it starts with having a bias or disregard for people who have mental illnesses in the first

If a person can't see or don't care about the stigma, they obviously harbor some themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leslie Valley (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 05:14 PM

21. NY plans such a data base. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #21)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 05:51 PM

30. NY plans and does absurd things with nary a raised eyebrow.

NYC ought to be taken over since the fascist fatcat is anti-constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #30)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 11:43 AM

44. Completely agree

Bloomberg gets no visible derision or any noticeable scrutiny, at least not of the volume he deserves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leslie Valley (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 05:26 PM

24. No due process. So no. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leslie Valley (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 05:29 PM

26. Great idea for keeping lots of records about mentally ill people...


...which will probably be all but useless in preventing dangerous people from getting guns.

So, no.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leslie Valley (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 05:59 PM

32. Not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leslie Valley (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 06:09 PM

33. Reads like a call to strike-out at what is feared rather than what is known

Certainly some mental illness could create a circumstance which upon consideration by psychiatrists and the courts could result in a person being prohibited from buying a firearm. I'm not arguing that symptoms such as anxiety, depression as well as 'serious' mental illness or 'dramatic' personality disorders are not or cannot be associated with being a danger to oneself or others.

What I am arguing is that people should be careful about hasty generalizations and false correlations. It will lead to bad policy.

I've looked on line at a handful of reports of this story and none of them reported the mental illness apparently implied by some member(s) of Dayvon's family. Until that's known, no one can know if NICS failed because of a lack of reporting from a mental health provider. It may turn out to be evidence of a reporting problem.

However, mental illnesses are much more common than most Americans realize. The lifetime risk of any disorder is just less than 51%. Although onsets can occur at ANY age, about half of onsets occur by age 30. It's fairly safe to assume that about 15-20% of college age kids have had some form of mental illness.

Consequently, if you ask if a person who commits a crime has had a mental illness you are very likely to get a positive answer. That correlation may have little to do with the crime committed, but it WILL serve to confirm stereotypical understanding and fear with society.

The media and bloggers seem to be cherry-picking which gun deaths get into 'the national conversation on gun violence'.
They seem very interested in reporting on mentally ill perpetrators which wrongly leverages social attitude on what should be fixed. Based on this sort of awareness of the problem the US won't get an effective fix. America will get an expensive, mostly ineffective, yet highly intrusive system that institutionalizes the stigmatization of the mentally ill.
















Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leslie Valley (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 08:53 AM

38. Never,if repukes had access to that database it would be abused like no one can imagine

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libtodeath (Reply #38)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:11 PM

47. +1 n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leslie Valley (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 10:34 AM

41. How about one with every detail, full medical records, etc. of everyone's life?

You know, just in case someone wants to buy a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leslie Valley (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 10:44 AM

42. Thie is practically impossible ..Here's why.

1. Gun-buying is legal


Then there is this:

Let's say someone is depressed and is lucky enough to have mental health care (@$100 per hour, few can afford on their own), and they see a therapist. Those sessions (to be effective) HAVE to be seen as confidential. How many people would just choose to not level with a therapist, if they knew what they said would be put into a database?

or how many people who are violence-prone do not even think they NEED mental health care?

Therapists are (rightfully) scared of being sued if they divulge information..

If someone is found to be mentally incompetent or criminally insane IN A COURT, that might be the best that could come from a database, but in general practice, anything else is probably never going to happen.

In a digital society, EVERYTHING "can be used against you", so how many people want something they said at a time of maximum psychic distress to be lingering in a database somewhere?

After deadly gun "event" people the shooter knows are usually front & center with information that WOULD have been pro-active and helpful, but for some reason, they kept it to themselves.

A cursory "background check" is not going to stop gun violence, and there are "mentally ill" people EVERYWHERE..in EVERY family and most will NEVER shoot anyone..a background check is just another bandaid that does not cover the gaping wound, but makes the care-giver feel as if they are helping.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leslie Valley (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:02 PM

46. The responses to the OP really encourage me.

I was really upset about this entire concept a couple of months ago.

Thanks to all of the enlightened DUers who see beyond the immediate crisis situation to view the bigger picture.

You're the best, DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leslie Valley (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:15 PM

49. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leslie Valley (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:18 PM

50. One person's national mental health database is another person's list of "undesirables".....

....which can very easily lead down a very dark road to euthanasia and sterilization.

Be careful what you wish for.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #50)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 02:20 PM

63. One person's nmh database is another's vein of gold...and gold veins get mined.

The folks selling you credit checks will be looking to make money by selling you" check yer hirings, check yer borrowers,
check yer neighbors, check on yer on-line dating match.

Government will be looking to recover the cost of constructing and maintaining such a list.

It's a Privateer's wet-dream.

What could possibly go wrong?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leslie Valley (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:18 PM

51. Like Duer 157099 said, this will backfire.

 

All this will do is make people even more reluctant to get professional help, knowing that if diagnosed with a mental condition, they'd be put into a database that people could see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leslie Valley (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:22 PM

52. Uh, . . . NO!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leslie Valley (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 02:03 PM

57. What we need is comprehensive, universally accessible, WHOLE-PERSON Health CARE & a

redefinition of mental health that stops abusing the words "sick" and "ill" and "crazy" and everything like those F*x Ewes/ChurchCoC judgements of others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leslie Valley (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 02:06 PM

58. What we need are more of these and fewer churches:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leslie Valley (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 02:15 PM

61. Who needs a database to know coveting an UZI is a problem for society?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leslie Valley (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 02:24 PM

64. Sure. You can give all of us tattoos to make it easier to identify us.

I think numbers on the forearm would be fine.

Maybe some special pajamas.

Call 'em Jammies, and no one will object.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leslie Valley (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 02:27 PM

65. Well with that kind of logic

Then we should keep a database of men, specifically white men, because, you know, they are the majority of spree and mass murder perpetrators. We should consider them all dangerous until proven otherwise and keep a database of information on them, just in case they want to buy guns and go on a rampage.

Your logic is flawed.

But since mental illness is feared, and otherwise seen as negative attribute innate to a person, rather something that happens TO a person, then people with psychiatric issues must be watched.

Nevermind the fact that a reasonably peaceful person seeking treatment for depression can be turned violent by medication (read the label--hostility as a side effect is listed), then there are issues of whether the person is acting according to their nature, or if they were drugged into violence. I know from experience and have the rap sheet to prove it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread