Skip to main content

View Diary: The Executive Strikes Back (69 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So long as we don't force therapists and doctors (9+ / 0-)

    to report every patient who comes in with a case of depression, anxiety, etc., to the government. Not only would this be intrusive, but it would discourage people from seeking needed help. Only the truly psychotic and others deemed risks to themselves or others should be reported, and even then their records kept well protected so that if they're denied in a gun purchase, the seller won't know why, and no one who doesn't need to know, can find out.

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 06:43:45 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I'd work it the other way around (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jamess

      so that anyone going to purchase a gun opens their treatment history to background check and/or goes through a screening. That makes it an opt-in list for gun buyers rather than a broadband list of everyone that has ever been in treatment (which would violate many laws and the Constitution). And there would have to be some determination in that list as to what constitutes a risk. Not all mental maladies are absolute disqualifiers.
      There is no sure-fire, 100% method for preventing someone with problems from getting guns, but a screen/test must be able to weed out the obvious inappropriate candidates.

      If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

      by CwV on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 08:42:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I disagree (0+ / 0-)

        If someone spends several months in therapy dealing with a mild depression or relationship problems, it should have zero impact on their ability to buy a gun. I'd argue that any mental health treatment for problems falling short of full-blown psychosis or other severe illnesses shouldn't just not be a factor in being able to buy a gun, they shouldn't even go on any database outside of the therapist's and insurer's, which are protected by HIPAA.

        We need to stop viewing mental illness as anything different from physical illness, and this shouldn't be the exception.

        "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

        by kovie on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 08:49:02 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I agree (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dvalkure
          If someone spends several months in therapy dealing with a mild depression or relationship problems, it should have zero impact on their ability to buy a gun
          and should be protected privacy.
          And people who are not interested in buying guns should not have their privacy destroyed (any more than it is).
          Making therapists decide which of their patients to report is bad for the therapists, for the patients and for public mental health.
          But when someone decides to get a gun, their mental health can be a public safety issue and so should be subject to research into their medical history and/or some kind of standardized psych screening. Somehow a determination has to be made as to the suitability of the purchase. Without some kind of organized, verifiable (and challengable) data, that is impossible. An opt-in list collects that data without violating the privacy of non-gun buyers.
          I also agree with
          We need to stop viewing mental illness as anything different from physical illness,
          We're heading that direction but not there yet by any means. And creating a grand list of people with psych issues would push us in the wrong direction.

          If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

          by CwV on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 09:27:10 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Even if someone tries to buy a gun (0+ / 0-)

            I don't want their medical histories subject to scrutiny. If that becomes the case, it could only work if everyone's medical history gets put on some centralized database that could then be used and abused by other agencies and entities, and that's just dangerous. Not that the NSA doesn't already do this, and possibly the FBI, but even if so, it's probably contained within these agencies, and hopefully used only for valid purposes. And even if not, I don't want to expand the use and abuse of private information for anything it's not meant for. Even if it's never abused, it will discourage many people from seeking help they need, which will end up negating any positive effects of denying some people guns. We need to restrict this to only serious mental illness cases, and even then it should be up to the therapist or facility to decide which those are. But once data is input into a database, it's there for good, to be abused eventually.

            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

            by kovie on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 09:32:36 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site