Reply #65: indeed ...

[iverglas]

Let me clarify: Obviously no actual medical records are kept in the NICS database. What I mean, and what should have been obvious, is that a record of mental unfitness is kept in the NICS database. Apparently it is a binary system - either on or off. If you have a disqualifying trait, a flag in your NICS file is turned on. Otherwise it's off.

Let me clarify: this has been obvious and known to me every step of the way.

The databank contains personally identifying information stating that an individual is ineligible for firearms purchase because s/he falls into one of the mental incompetency / mental illness categories that make a person ineligible.

Now, is there any chance we can see the point here?

A person who will NEVER make ANY attempt to acquire a firearm has been entered in a databank where his/her psychiatric/psychological status is then permanently on record.

I do not want my health information being collected and stored in a personally identifiable manner in any databank where it is not needed for the purposes of my health care or of some purpose directly related to public health (communicable diseases would be about the only such exception I can think of). And I do not support anyone's health information being collected and stored that way. And I most especially do not support it being collected and stored that way and made available to members of the public, be they licensed to have access to it or not.

If there were some good evidence that this infringement of rights was necessary, that it could reasonably be foreseen that it would result in an important and pressing public purpose being achieved, that there was no way of achieving that purpose without this infringement of rights, etc., I might change my mind. I wouldn't change my mind just because it doesn't affect me. (That would make me a "liberal", where you're at: a person with the strange notion that other people's rights and freedoms are as important as mine.)

The system you have does NOT meet those criteria. At least not any better than the system I have. The system I have has a deterrent element that yours does not have: the more extensive investigation of an individual before authority to acquire firearms is granted and more stringent qualification requirements (e.g. firearms safety course, signature of/notice to present and former spouse, provision of references), the applicant's knowledge of the details of that process, the permanent record of the application, etc. It simply can NOT be summed up as "voluntary reporting".

The entire process in the licensing system in Canada simply provides more safeguards against inappropriate people (remember, we don't have "ineligible" people, except those expressly/individually prohibited from owning firearms) being accidentally authorized to acquire firearms.

Refusal rates are virtually meaningless, one big reason being that we have no way of knowing how many people were deterred from even applying (in either system) by knowledge of what the likely outcome would be. And I submit that there is much higher deterrence factor in the Cdn system. And I submit that preventing people from applying for authority to acquire firearms when they are not suitable candidates is a better approach to achieving the purpose than hoping to catch them at the last possible moment. Just like speed humps and roundabouts are a better approach to reducing vehicle speeds on residential streets than posting a cop on the block to catch speeders. Cops need bathroom breaks, and there's no guarantee that ineligible people will be reported to NICS.


if the worst you can pin on me is that I use the pejorative "crazy" to describe people with mental health problems

But of course it isn't. You have not only used an assortment of labels and made implications of moral turpitude / stupidity by suggesting that people are responsible for the effects of failing to keep themselves in good mental health, you have exhibited total disregard for the rights of people who have psychiatric/psychological problems. Medieval is what I said, and meant.


Yes, this may result in some people refusing to seek mental health treatment. The alternative, to turn a blind eye to mental health issues with regards to firearm ownership, is not acceptable in my view.

Yeah. If only that weren't a false dichotomy.