Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

As we all know that one of THE MOST IMPORTANT aspects of stopping these school tragedies is identifying the sickos beforehand, I can see where the Mental Health profession is seeing a conundrum of a double-edged sword. If they abide by the new laws in NY, their patients will either clam up or not show up. It would have been much better IMO had the profession been able to figure out a way to alert the authorities of a sicko without the new requirement being public knowledge via headline news.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01 ... a-gun?lite

It's not even the "nutcases" that play into this.

How many members of the military/law enforcement are going to suffer with PTSD, or depression, because to get help means giving up your right to own a firearm?

What about someone who just needs short term help? For example, the passing of a child, or your home burning down, or a divorce. These things do eventually get better with time, but would they qualify to keep you from owning a gun?

That's the problem, we have to distinguish the differences between a Holmes/Lautner/Cho, and John Q Public having a rough go.

There has to be a happy medium.

The problem is where to draw the line. At what point do you declare someone to be a danger to themselves and/or society? It's a question that's not easily answered with a simple checksheet.

"Sickos' eh?

Here's some food for thought.

Most Schizohphrenics are not dangerous to anyone but themselves when they have a psychotic break.
300 million americans have schizophrenia, out of those 300 million only 1% or 300,000 commit violent crimes.

Both Adam Lazna and James Holmes were placed on anti-depressant drugs which cause unexepected mood swings and violent behavior.

Not to mention, psychological testing doesn't capture latent disturbing tendencies brought on by environmental stimuli, and can't predict when or even if, someone would or could "snap."

All these new rules about mental health are going to do is ensure there is massive regulation for better diagnosis which could end up with perfectly sane people being barred from buying firearms.

Just my two cents.

Sadly, the only time your hear about schizophrenics from the mass media is when the few violent ones do commit crimes, You never hear about the ones who are fully functional and have successfully managed the disorder and are able to lead fulfilling lives.

Reverenddel wrote:
That's the problem, we have to distinguish the differences between a /Holmes/LautnerCho, and John Q Public having a rough go.

There has to be a happy medium.

Yes, but now in NY, there is going to be a huge reduction in the "Holmes/LautnerCho" personalities even being seen by a mental healthcare professional. If the same legislation gets passed nationwide, it'll really be tragic -- kind of like we are biting off our nose to spite our face.

A quick google search suggests the US population is around 313 million. Just about everyone has schizophrenia?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

allingeneral wrote:The problem is where to draw the line. At what point do you declare someone to be a danger to themselves and/or society? It's a question that's not easily answered with a simple checksheet.

The one thing I'm certain of is that a law will NEVER draw the line appropriately.

gunderwood wrote:

allingeneral wrote:The problem is where to draw the line. At what point do you declare someone to be a danger to themselves and/or society? It's a question that's not easily answered with a simple checksheet.

The one thing I'm certain of is that a law will NEVER draw the line appropriately.

That's an absolute certainty.

GeneFrenkle wrote:A quick google search suggests the US population is around 313 million. Just about everyone has schizophrenia?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Just missed that, big time typo. What I mean was out of 300 million American's only 3 million have schizophrenia and only 1% or 300,000 commit violent crimes.

My fathers side of the family has multiple mental issues that are genetic including schizophrenia. My father was unfortionate enough to be one of that 1% that commit violent crime, though the blame is soley on him because he should have known that putting cardboard in the vents so people couldn't watch him wasn't normal behavior. He never went to get help despite his horrible temper and substance abuse problems and ended up killing his mothers best friend due to the hallucinations. The other members of the family manage pretty well with medication and therapy, thought some flare ups still happen on occasion.

As far as I am concerned the line has already been drawn, Per the Virginia State Police website the following criteria would disqualify you from the purchase of a firearm:

Have you ever been acquitted by reason of insanity?
Have you ever been adjudicated legally incompetent or mentally incapacitated, or adjudicated an incapacitated person?
Have you ever been involuntarily admitted to a facility or involuntarily ordered to outpatient mental health treatment?
Have you ever been the subject of a temporary detention order and subsequently agreed to voluntarily admission for mental health treatment?

I think it is reasonable that the above information be included in the NICs database to filter out those that really should not have access to firearms. Anything above and beyond that is a problem for me. When we start to deny Constitutional rights to people on what they might do we have traded everyone's freedom for a false sense of safety and security from those few that might perform a deplorable act. Personally not a good trade off in my mind.

By the way Der Biermeister grat pic......Prost