Executive Powers & Mental Health

[JimDandy]

That being said, I do not think that there is any way for laws to stop all evil or illness

Scrub- Can you explain why a law has to stop all evil or illness?

So, if they have been properly adjudicated, what exactly is the problem?

The problem is your next assumption:

Then exactly how does the apparent complete reporting of felony convictions

The reporting of felons and serious misdemeanors is by no means anywhere near complete. I have ZERO evidence to support it other than the huge disparity of numbers and the anecdotal evidence of lawyers telling us pleading Temporary Insanity is Hollywood legend more than every day fact- But I suspect more people are prohibited for convictions than mental deficiency adjudications. The database itself is horribly undersourced.

And the reporting of mental adjudications and criminal convictions are under the same carrot and stick regulations- especially as some "adjudications" are automatic when someone is found a couple versions of non compos mentis.

[scrubcedar]

Romeo33, I think having these people use firearms they are unfamiliar and unskilled with is a limiting factor on their deadliness.
Force this down another pathway and they might very well find something a lot more deadly. What if the Boston bombers had worked up more effective IED's and all the injured had ended up dead instead? The thought scares the crap out of me.
I'm amazed it hasn't happened already and the reason might be because guns are available. Sit down, spend five minutes and think about how you could cause more damage than they did with common materials and a little internet research.
It's pretty obvious you're an intelligent guy, I have every faith you could be more effective without a firearm than they were with a firearm. As far as I'm concerned this comes under the "the devil you know theory".

[scrubcedar]

Jimdandy, you and I were posting at the same time. I don't expect the laws to stop all of a problem. I do expect them to have a positive effect. Either in deterrence or punishment.
In this case deterrence might end up causing a worse problem in my opinion, see my post above.
I don't see the people determined to cause problems allowing themselves to be caught this way. Mentally ill doesn't mean stupid. On the contrary sometimes mental illness allows the person to use every bit of their potential intelligence, cunning, and problem solving abilities.

[Tom Servo]

You know what I'd like to see? Laws and/or executive orders giving more money and support to our mental hospitals, rehab centers, and outpatient facilities. I'd like to see rehab and mental health counseling treated the same as other medical issues by insurance carriers and employers.

In other words, I'd like to have the conversation on mental health we were promised before they derailed it with futile and divisive attempts at gun regulation.

We treat mental illness by stigmatizing it, punishing it, or doping it. It's a very 18th-century way of going about things, and it does us no credit as a modern society.

The thing is, this wouldn't be a nasty knock-down drag-out fight in the legislature, and it wouldn't be hard to make these changes. We don't need to violate HIPAA or deny rights to people; we need to encourage them to get treatment before things get bad.

Would it prevent every Cho/Holmes/Lanza? Probably not. But I'll take a page from the antis' playbook and suggest that it's worth doing if it saves a few lives.

[scrubcedar]

Tom I think you underestimate. I think an effective overhaul of our mental health system would stop most of these things and a lot of other numerically smaller instances of violence and death.
When you are around someone this badly disturbed you know it. If you are a parent or mental health professional you know it for sure (even if as a parent you are in denial). If there was an effective method to step in and deal with the problem at that point a lot of this gets short circuited.

[Tom Servo]

Tom I think you underestimate.

I would be delighted to be proven wrong

Even if such a measure didn't reduce violent crime, it would improve the quality of life for a great many people, leading to a net benefit for society. I'd also go out on a limb and predict lower rates of suicide, substance-abuse related crime, and neglected/abused children and spouses.

...or the politicians can waste our time on bad social science like gun control.

[JimDandy]

You know what I'd like to see? Laws and/or executive orders giving more money and support to our mental hospitals, rehab centers, and outpatient facilities.

One does not inherently prohibit the other.

UBG's will effect far more than those rare individuals who go on a spree.

[MLeake]

JimDandy, how well did prohibition work with regard to alcohol?

How well has the war on drugs worked?

So, why are you so optimistic about UBCs? And why are you willing to cede the 2A rights of others in order to see UBCs implemented?

[JimDandy]

UBG's are not prohibition. The choice is not criminal gun, or no gun, leaving comparisons to Prohibition, and the War on Drugs as strawmen.

Much like the "cedeing 2A rights of others". You're not asking the government for permission to purchase a firearm. You're giving them an opportunity to object for just cause. If they don't have just cause, they don't get to say No. This isn't May Issue a Firearm. It's Shall Issue a Firearm.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by JimDandy

UBG's will effect far more than those rare individuals who go on a spree.

Will they? Criminals, by definition, flout the law. How would one more statute deter them?

Originally Posted by JimDandy

You're not asking the government for permission to purchase a firearm. You're giving them an opportunity to object for just cause.

In theory, you're correct. In practice, we would find those two things to be very much the same. The bar for "just cause" would be lowered after every major tragedy, or at the whim of a hostile legislature.

The prohibition analogy is interesting, though. Prohibition was ostensibly meant to reduce societal ills stemming from alcohol abuse. There is ample evidence for punitive enforcement of statutes, but I've never heard of any efforts by its advocates to treat alcoholism. (The best progress on that front was AA, an organization with no government ties or support.)

Prohibition focused on punishing the offenders rather than addressing the underlying problem, and it was an utter failure. We don't need to repeat those mistakes.

[HiBC]

The only way I can see to effectively enforce UBC would require an inventory of each individual's firearms,subject to physical audit.

I would like to ask the proponents of UBC to either agree that is true,or offer a believable alternative.

IMO,UBC equates to universal registration along with submitting to unreasonable search,ie If you have a gun not registered or if you cannot produce a gun registered to you,it is evidence you have made a transfer without a background check.

Knock,knock,we are here to audit your firearms.

That goes far beyond "common sense"

Common sense tells me UBC is unacceptable

[JimDandy]

Will they? Criminals, by definition, flout the law. How would one more statute deter them?

The same way the current statute deterred them. It drastically reduced the number of crime guns coming in a direct FFL sale. We reduce the number coming from the secondary market, and the supply will reduce, driving up prices, and wait periods.

[Tom Servo]

It drastically reduced the number of crime guns coming in a direct FFL sale.

Did it, though? I've seen no significant decrease in firearms crime attributable to the GCA. When you refer to the "secondary market," you're really combining two separate things: the kind where I sell you a gun in good faith, and the black market, in which firearms flow illegally.

UBC's and such will restrict the first, but there is no evidence they will curtail the second. If we're to talk of making rights harder to exercise, then we really need (by even the most lax form of rational basis) some proof that the measure in question would have some sort of social utility.

I'm sure Elliot Ness looked great on camera smashing a few crates of booze he found in grandpa's attic somewhere, but the law he enforced did nothing to help the folks languishing in gutters and drunk tanks.

[MLeake]

JimDandy, why would Joe Thug pay $599 for a Glock at CTD or $1000 for a Colt at the LGS or $1200 for my 10mm longslide, when he could buy a stolen Glock from one of his druggie buddies for $250 or some drugs?

Or when he could steal one from a glove box?

Or when he and his buddies could back a stolen truck through the wall of an LGS after midnight?

You do realize, don't you, that under the bills as presented the loan of a gun at a range could have been considered a transfer, requiring a UBC? Or that you could not let a friend borrow your firearm to go hunting?

Are you naive enough to think those were oversights, and not deliberate attempts to convert the US to NYC style regulations?

Edit: Another thought on UBCs.... How would NICS react to an attempt at a private purchase of a handgun by an 18yo, in those states where that is legal, such as Missouri? Would the system apply FFL rules, and deny due to age?

If so, would we then disallow 19-20yo LEOs and 17-20yo military from being issued firearms, or would we create yet another privileged government class?

Coming back around to the mental health side of things, I think the mentally dangerous are being used by both sides - as bogeymen by the antis, to show extreme cases of why guns (much like the foosball) is the devil! - and as decoys by our side, to give the government some target other than our guns.

It amazes me, what people will throw under the bus to achieve an agenda...

[Alabama Shooter]

This:

The problem as pointed out by professionals is that we do not have the tech to really identify dangerous individuals without a tremendous number of false positives that are done with good will or maliciously by antigun medical and mental health professionals. The truly delusional might be spotted but that's about it.

Tightening up the reporting of those adjudicated (if they are not being reported) makes sense as they can have protections and appeals.

However, laws like the SAFE act are not supported by mental health professionals who think about it for more reasons than liability.

If a poster can come up with literature that demonstrates reliable predictions of violence or such a technique, please do. It doesn't exist.

And this:

You know what I'd like to see? Laws and/or executive orders giving more money and support to our mental hospitals, rehab centers, and outpatient facilities. I'd like to see rehab and mental health counseling treated the same as other medical issues by insurance carriers and employers.

In other words, I'd like to have the conversation on mental health we were promised before they derailed it with futile and divisive attempts at gun regulation.

Are about an accurate a summary of the situation as I know of.


I would really, really like to keep the one in a fifty million guy/ gal that is mentally ill and goes around shooting people as a part of that from getting a firearm. But not at any cost. There is too much potential for abuse to be built into any government scheme. A real conversation is needed on the subject not a shortcut to banning whatever.

[JimDandy]

Did it, though? I've seen no significant decrease in firearms crime attributable to the GCA. When you refer to the "secondary market," you're really combining two separate things: the kind where I sell you a gun in good faith, and the black market, in which firearms flow illegally.

Actually I don't. The numbers I've seen distinctly separate Bona Fide FFL transfers, Illegal FFL Transfers, Friends and Family Second hand transfers, and Street/Black Market purchases.

[MLeake]

JimDandy, are you referring to the inmate survey, where only 250 out of 2500 responded? Or are you getting your numbers elsewhere?

[JimDandy]

That, and this news article..
How Criminals Get Guns

[MLeake]

That article throws around some percentages provided by ATF, but does not explain how the ATF stats were derived.

Edit: So, the same source that said 90% of Mexican crime guns came from the US....

[Tom Servo]

Jim, Noyes' article is nearly 20 years old, and the study it references is based on one portion of one city. It can't be taken as a reliable source at this point. In fact, the dreaded "kitchen table" FFL's blamed for criminal transfers are largely extinct now.

The article seems to be confusing how criminals seemingly get guns from dealers. If a gun is legitimately purchased from a dealer, then stolen and used in a crime, it is traced back to the dealer. That doesn't mean the dealer sold it to the criminal. It simply means the gun has been entered into the tracing system. Once a gun is in the system, it is automatically a "crime gun." There is no other classification that I know of.

Here's a fun example: I got a call for a trace a few years back. I looked it up in the books, and I found that it hadn't been logged out. There was no sale.

My blood went cold for a second. Had we had a gun stolen? Oh boy, here comes paperwork and scrutiny. Then I remembered seeing that gun in stock less than a week prior to the call. I went out on the sales floor, and there it was, on the shelf.

The gun had never left the store. It had gone from the manufacturer to the distributor to us. How the heck was it a crime gun?

As it turns out, the distributor had some sort of mixup in their records, and the inspector decided to initiate a trace. So, there you have it: a law-abiding FFL and a crime gun. Heavens, how do I sleep at night?

Now, as the article mentions (briefly), there's a big difference between an FFL and a "dealer" selling his sketchy wares out his trunk in a back alley. The article is trying to conflate the two, which is not surprising given the time, atmosphere, and culture in which it was written.

[Alizard]

Tom I think you underestimate. I think an effective overhaul of our mental health system would stop most of these things and a lot of other numerically smaller instances of violence and death.

No question about it.

However, the real obstacle at this point is that anything that Obama or anybody in his admin suggests will be rejected and "strangled in the crib" even if it has value. And if any change is related in any way to "health care", they will just slap it with the "Obamacare" label.

The other problem is to get any agencies to "take ownership" at the state levels. They always refuse. As long as they won't buy in, nothing is going to get fixed.

In Cali, we passed a law that (in order to reduce illegal immigration) schools would be required to check for some kind of residency status before allowing students to enroll in public schools. The schools simply refused to do it. I suspect a similar event if the Fed passed some kind of reporting law for this into the database.

[Gallstones]

What can happen with mandatory reporting is that those who are not so decompensated that they are having obvious difficulty functioning will not seek treatment, and the first indication that something is awry might be one where they suffer some kind of overwhelm and do kill someone. More often than not, that someone will be themselves.

I very much dislike the idea of stigmatizing people and removing their rights just because they have a mental health diagnosis.

[cvc944]

ATF officials say that only about 8% of the nation's 124,000 retail gun dealers sell the majority of handguns that are used in crimes.

"Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes," Wachtel said.

Perhaps Mr. Jay Wachtel has an agenda, one happily embraced by Mr. Dan Noyes who wrote this for PBS. It seems the numbers don't match up, and FFL dealers aren't as bad as these gentlemen think they are. I would love to know what percentage of the 8% number sales were legal sales, and I would prefer to hear it from a different source.

[HiBC]

Would the proponents of UBC please refer to post 61 and offer an answer?

[JimDandy]

The only way I can see to effectively enforce UBC would require an inventory of each individual's firearms,subject to physical audit.

I would like to ask the proponents of UBC to either agree that is true,or offer a believable alternative.

I'll disagree. There's no requirement to perform an audit now on those firearms sold by FFL's. There is, as long as the government is to be believed- a decision left to each their own personal "tin foil hat" fit- no registry. They track the firearm by starting with the firearm itself, or at least the serial number of it.

There is currently no general check that the firearm owned by the FFL is actually owned by the FFL, when you get your NICS check. From my understanding the trace process works as such-

They find the firearm. Ask the manufacturer who it was distrubuted to, who it was retailed by, who it was sold to, if the buyer still has it, who it was further sold to etc. The only time they know who had it before they ask someone, is the manufacturer. And thats because the manufacturer's name is stamped on the thing.