Eeyore
Regular Member
The latest mass shooting at the Navy Yard follows the disturbing pattern of nearly all mass shootings: a person with a history of mental disturbance clears a background check and legally purchases a weapon. Mayhem ensues. It stands to reason--in order to even contemplate a shooting spree a person would have to be crazy.
As a refresher, consider:
* Aaron Alexis (WNY) - history of social maladjustment and anger management issues, multiple run-ins with police
* Adam Lanza (Sandy Hook) - history of Asperger's/autism-type problems [the only one who didn't purchase his own weapon(s)]
* James Holmes (Aurora) - everyone who knew him thought he was bat$#!+ crazy. A school psychologist recommended intervention but was ignored.
* Wade Page (Sikh temple) - neo-Nazi (I'm sorry, but being a neo-Nazi is a sign of mental illness as far as I'm concerned) with a history of disciplinary problems
* Jared Loughner (Tucson) - too crazy to even stand trial; ruled incompetent due to paranoid schizophrenia
* Seung-hui Cho (Va Tech) - previously diagnosed and treated, but the psychologist failed to update NICS IAW state law
* Eric Harris (Columbine) - treated for depression; numerous complaints made to LE with no action taken; previous arrest for theft
NOTE: Lanza and Harris are different from the others in that they didn't clear background checks.
Gun rights advocates have said all along that it's the person, not the tool. So let's have a constructive debate. Points for discussion:
1. I think there's a wide consensus that felons and the mentally ill shouldn't have access to firearms.
2. Unfortunately, it appears our current "system" of relying on family or acquaintances to seek help, or society just assuming a person is sane until they [violently] prove otherwise doesn't seem to be working very well.
3. I believe this non-system will become politically untenable as mass-shootings like these continue, and getting ahead of this is better than waiting to see what the gun grabbers come up with.
4. Can we imagine a way that mental-health screening could be balanced with 2A rights?
The devil is always in the details. It's not as easy as Homer Simpson getting "SANE" rubber-stamped on the back of his hand. What would be the criteria for being considered "sane enough to own a firearm?" With any system, there would need to be a process for adjudicating mental-health findings and their impact. But arguing about these details without an overall framework may be putting the cart before the horse.
Flagging NICS for mental health is a start, but that only works with purchases from FFLs--unless all guns are registered. At least one state (California?) now has a squad whose sole job is to compare new mental health flags with pre-existing gun registrations, and then confiscating those weapons. On the one hand, this makes sense from a public safety perspective. On the other hand, it's potentially troubling evidence that registration eventually leads to confiscation.
Some states require a permit to purchase. A mental health screening requirement could be included in that, but again, that only works for FFL purchases. And who would be responsible for paying for the screening in order to exercise a Constitutional right?
All these shooters were known by family and/or associates to be "not right" but most had not been diagnosed or treated by a mental health professional. For those, there wouldn't be any kind of formal flag. The only way you'd learn about them is if would-be gun owners had to undergo the type of investigation needed to get a government security clearance, where agents actually contact family members, neighbors, etc. These investigations are slow (6-12 months) and fantastically expensive, so I don't see this option being viable.
Anybody got any good ideas?
As a refresher, consider:
* Aaron Alexis (WNY) - history of social maladjustment and anger management issues, multiple run-ins with police
* Adam Lanza (Sandy Hook) - history of Asperger's/autism-type problems [the only one who didn't purchase his own weapon(s)]
* James Holmes (Aurora) - everyone who knew him thought he was bat$#!+ crazy. A school psychologist recommended intervention but was ignored.
* Wade Page (Sikh temple) - neo-Nazi (I'm sorry, but being a neo-Nazi is a sign of mental illness as far as I'm concerned) with a history of disciplinary problems
* Jared Loughner (Tucson) - too crazy to even stand trial; ruled incompetent due to paranoid schizophrenia
* Seung-hui Cho (Va Tech) - previously diagnosed and treated, but the psychologist failed to update NICS IAW state law
* Eric Harris (Columbine) - treated for depression; numerous complaints made to LE with no action taken; previous arrest for theft
NOTE: Lanza and Harris are different from the others in that they didn't clear background checks.
Gun rights advocates have said all along that it's the person, not the tool. So let's have a constructive debate. Points for discussion:
1. I think there's a wide consensus that felons and the mentally ill shouldn't have access to firearms.
2. Unfortunately, it appears our current "system" of relying on family or acquaintances to seek help, or society just assuming a person is sane until they [violently] prove otherwise doesn't seem to be working very well.
3. I believe this non-system will become politically untenable as mass-shootings like these continue, and getting ahead of this is better than waiting to see what the gun grabbers come up with.
4. Can we imagine a way that mental-health screening could be balanced with 2A rights?
The devil is always in the details. It's not as easy as Homer Simpson getting "SANE" rubber-stamped on the back of his hand. What would be the criteria for being considered "sane enough to own a firearm?" With any system, there would need to be a process for adjudicating mental-health findings and their impact. But arguing about these details without an overall framework may be putting the cart before the horse.
Flagging NICS for mental health is a start, but that only works with purchases from FFLs--unless all guns are registered. At least one state (California?) now has a squad whose sole job is to compare new mental health flags with pre-existing gun registrations, and then confiscating those weapons. On the one hand, this makes sense from a public safety perspective. On the other hand, it's potentially troubling evidence that registration eventually leads to confiscation.
Some states require a permit to purchase. A mental health screening requirement could be included in that, but again, that only works for FFL purchases. And who would be responsible for paying for the screening in order to exercise a Constitutional right?
All these shooters were known by family and/or associates to be "not right" but most had not been diagnosed or treated by a mental health professional. For those, there wouldn't be any kind of formal flag. The only way you'd learn about them is if would-be gun owners had to undergo the type of investigation needed to get a government security clearance, where agents actually contact family members, neighbors, etc. These investigations are slow (6-12 months) and fantastically expensive, so I don't see this option being viable.
Anybody got any good ideas?