A Tough Nut to Crack (pun intended)

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?

Yeah. Knock off the background checks. They don't work; and they infringe on rights of the sane and law-abiding.

Not all felons, and not all those with mental health problems, IMHO, ought to or need to be prohibited persons. And yet some of the felons I would not have any problem over possessing firearms should not, again IMHO, be allowed to vote or hold public office or serve on a jury. The list of those with mental health problems is a little more difficult for me to sort out.

As much as I am opposed to mental health patients in general being made prohibited persons, I am convinced that there are certain specific behaviors that I believe ought to reported in order to cause a full adversarial hearing on whether or not the individual should be declared a prohibited person - as well as believing that the designation should be reversable via another full adversarial hearing.

For the most part making someone with a mental health issue into a prohibited person ought to be based on a specific threat, as opposed to the possibility that there is a chance that someone might, under a host of undefinable conditions, possibly go postal. It's called life - you take your chances and there is no bubble wrap you can encase yourself in and be absolutely protected. Even Howard Hughes found out that truth.

But then the gun control folks would not be able to exert widespread control.

stay safe.

We must fight any type of background check. If you can't be trusted with a firearm then you should be incarcerated. If someone has done nothing to merit incarceration then leave them alone until such time that they commit a crime.

It is galactically naive to give the power of discerning crazy from normal to the government, even if the government official is required to have the entire alphabet behind his name.

georg jetson said:

We must fight any type of background check. If you can't be trusted with a firearm then you should be incarcerated. If someone has done nothing to merit incarceration then leave them alone until such time that they commit a crime.

It is galactically naive to give the power of discerning crazy from normal to the government, even if the government official is required to have the entire alphabet behind his name.

Click to expand...

I testified to my state and federal legislators that BR chks are useless and explained why ... they are mainly idiots of course who cannot grasp simple ideas ...

skidmark said:

And yet some of the felons I would not have any problem over possessing firearms should not, again IMHO, be allowed to vote or hold public office or serve on a jury.

Click to expand...

Allowing felons to vote would seem to be a useful check on government, especially as the standard for what constitutes a "felony" is continuously lowered. Presumably, there will never be sufficient sentiment to legalize, say, theft and murder.

I might agree when it comes to juries, assuming "felony" meant "violent or aggressive offense". For today's many "felons" who aren't actually criminals, they might be argued to have singular experience in exactly how just the prison sentence they're about to impose really is – the judgment of which should be an integral part of the job of a jury, despite what the government says.

FWIW, Ann Coulter agress, in her usual sarcastic and hyperbolic way: http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2013-09-18.html#read_more

Sarcastic? Always. Hyperbolic? Not this article, IMO. The pattern is compelling.

Eeyore said:

FWIW, Ann Coulter agress, in her usual sarcastic and hyperbolic way: http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2013-09-18.html#read_more

Click to expand...

"Hey everyone! Don't look at the boogeyman of guns! Look over here! I've got a new boogeyman! Crazy people! They all need to be locked up!"

What a disgusting control freak. Is gun crime in America drastically down, or isn't it, Ann Coulter?

I'm with georgjetson:

georg jetson said:

It is galactically naive to give the power of discerning crazy from normal to the government, even if the government official is required to have the entire alphabet behind his name.

Click to expand...

sane-sane-sane-sane-INSANE

See how that works? Like a disease, you're well and then you are ill.

What can be done? Little really.

What should be done? Nothing in respect to gun laws. Its a medical issue, not a gun law issue.

IIRC the onset of schizophrenia occurs in males around 25 years of age on average.

In a nation of 300,000 (let alone the world of 5B) some completely nutty things are going to happen and there's no way to prevent them.

Why not outlaw backyard swimming pools? Automobiles? Road crossing deer? Big gubmint? Nobody even tries to suggest doing that. Doctors, hospitals and big gubmint kill vast sums of people, akin to genocide. Big O bombs wedding parties with predator drones. If that isn't evil I don't know what is.

Yet with firearms with a vastly lower incidence of problems, every anti jumps on them as a cause and effect. There's even more positive outcome, since guns save lives.

It's a false and deceptive paradigm. They don't want normal people to protect themselves. I wouldn't even be surprised if the gubmint wasn't sending guns to Mexican gangs...oh, wait...

The simple fact of the matter is that almost all of these shooters were certifiably NUTS. Everyone around them knew it. Yet they were allowed to walk around to do the things that nuts do.

One of the legitimate functions of government is to protect our rights from being violated by criminals and, yes, crazies. As long as due process is followed, the person to be committed is properly represented and his other rights in an adversarial encounter in court are protected, courts are exactly the place to decide that one is a danger to society due to mental illness and should have his Liberty restricted--or not.

eye95 said:

As long as due process is followed

Click to expand...

And there's the rub...

eye95 said:

The simple fact of the matter is that almost all of these shooters were certifiably NUTS. Everyone around them knew it. Yet they were allowed to walk around to do the things that nuts do.

One of the legitimate functions of government is to protect our rights from being violated by criminals and, yes, crazies. <snip>.

Click to expand...

Well, I would not support a law that would require people to call the guberment if they think that someone is a loon; nor that penalties be applied to those that do not tattle on their crazy relatives. Such a law would be so wide in scope that relatives would be tossed into the clink like used tissues.