At least 3 children and 3 adults killed in Nashville private Christian elementary school shooting; shooter killed by police

Hans Blaster said:

Vigorous background checks and permits for such weapons. I doubt this person would have passed such.

Click to expand...

Many people have firearms they inherited, bought from other individuals or at trade shows

ThatRobGuy said:

Yes, that should be a disqualifying factor.

There are certain things that severe mental health issues and defects preclude people from doing. Sounds "harsh" and unfair, but it's the reality.


If we swapped out the topic and made it about something other than guns, it would be very obvious how flawed your proposal is.

For pilots, the FAA defines following medical conditions as disqualifying:

• Angina pectoris
• Bipolar disease
• Cardiac valve replacement
• Coronary heart disease that has been treated or, if untreated, that has been symptomatic or clinically significant
• Diabetes mellitus requiring hypoglycemic medications
• Disturbance of consciousness without satisfactory explanation of cause
• Epilepsy
• Heart replacement
• Myocardial infarction
• Permanent cardiac pacemaker
• Personality disorder that is severe enough to have repeatedly manifested itself by overt acts
• Psychosis
• Substance abuse
• Substance dependence
• Transient loss of control of nervous system function(s) without satisfactory explanation of cause.

Should we lift those restrictions because it may discourage a person with any of the conditions above (who wants to fly a plane) from seeking help for their condition? Or are those restrictions there for good reason?

Click to expand...

Straw man. That has absolutely nothing to do with owning a firearm. Many bipolar individuals have their condition under control and are high functioning, capable people living normal lives

BPPLEE said:

Many people have firearms they inherited, bought from other individuals or at trade shows

Click to expand...

Like I said, the background check and license processes are too lax.

ThatRobGuy said:

The unique advantage they had is that they were able to get it implemented "at the ground floor" so to speak before the population was already heavily armed.

They added that constitutional provision as a response to what they went through being occupied by the communists so their "right to bear arms" wasn't established until the 90's, and the populace was largely unarmed before that point (because that's how the Soviets liked their occupied nations, unarmed and unable to fight back).

So when the rights were granted, they could implement their gun control framework from the start.

It would've taken them longer to achieve their low murder rate had the baseline starting point been "more guns than people" like our current situation is.

Click to expand...

I can imagine a bipartisan effort establishing certain provisions if they were done in private...but people who need to do their business in the light of day and get elected give me little hope for it happening.

RDKirk said:

The problem we face, though, is that even the medical profession, particularly psychiatry, is already heavily politicized. I'm pretty sure there are loads of psychiatrists who would already judge a person unfit to own a firearm simply for wanting to own one.

Click to expand...

It is not just politicization of health care providers. While I'm sure that is a factor for a few, there are other factors I think come more into play. There is a huge liability that can get transferred to providers. Consider if they assess someone as "safe" who then does a mass shooting. Who do you think is in line to get sued next, possibly lose their license and their livelihood? There is a lot of judgment and more than a little guesswork in who is safe and who is not. There is no clearcut litmus test saying who is okay and who is not. Providers are going to be very cautious and if they err, I think most will err on the side of safety. I did.

In my 30 years of practice, I have once been called upon to make a professional recommendation about a person possessing firearms. The weight of liability did flash before my eyes, but it was my lack of certainty that guided my decision. I felt bad for that chap but felt at ease for making a safe recommendation for the greater good.

I might add that news articles say this person was in treatment. So access to treatment and treatment aren't always the answers.. Treatment is not foolproof.

ThatRobGuy said:

I was thinking more along the lines of showing sign-off that you haven't been diagnosed with any of a pre-set list of mental illnesses that would be categorized as severe...and not so much getting a psychiatrists opinion on whether you should have a gun.

In that scenario, a doctor is likely going to be up for the review board if they suddenly start diagnosing severe mental illnesses willy nilly simply because they suspect it's a person wanting a gun.

Primarily, because certain diagnoses could potentially restrict other rights and privileges as well.

Click to expand...

HIPAA protects protected health information from being disclosed so if someone is purchasing a firearm, applying for a job as a police officer or applying for a gun permit their health information is protected and disclosing a problem with depression or bipolar disorder is pretty much voluntary. There is a fine line between the need to restrict certain individuals from owning firearms and the right to privacy. Do you want to be disqualified from a job or from purchasing a firearm because something bad happened to you at one time and you were depressed about it? Even though you are fine now?

Hans Blaster said:

Like I said, the background check and license processes are too lax.

Click to expand...

No matter what restrictions you put on firearms even making them illegal they will always be available. Look at illegal narcotics. I can go to a city I’ve never been to and in two hours I could find someone to sell me drugs. What makes you think it would be any different with firearms?

RDKirk said:

If the government would actually commit to protecting people, it might help.

But the Supreme Court has already ruled a couple of times that government is not accountable for anyone's protection. The police or fire department can literally ignore a 911 call, and not be held accountable. Therefore, it would be immoral for government to stand in the way of people to protect themselves when government refuses the responsibility.

Click to expand...

Imagine any town in a hurricane or sudden superstorm they were inadequately warned of or prepared for...
911 is ringing off the hook and obviously they cannot respond to every call. Sure, relief funds may eventually be made available to you...but the idea the government is negligent to everyone they couldn't respond to is bonkers.

That said, should you be so unfortunate to find yourself in that situation....getting your GPS coordinate before calling would be a smart move.

Ana the Ist said:

Imagine any town in a hurricane or sudden superstorm they were inadequately warned of or prepared for...
911 is ringing off the hook and obviously they cannot respond to every call. Sure, relief funds may eventually be made available to you...but the idea the government is negligent to everyone they couldn't respond to is bonkers.

That said, should you be so unfortunate to find yourself in that situation....getting your GPS coordinate before calling would be a smart move.

Click to expand...

I used the explicit phrase "not accountable" -- twice--for a reason.

Are you arguing that the government that won't allow itself to be accountable for my protection can morally prevent me from providing for my own protection? Is that the debate we're having?

seeking.IAM said:

It is not just politicization of health care providers. While I'm sure that is a factor for a few, there are other factors I think come more into play. There is a huge liability that can get transferred to providers. Consider if they assess someone as "safe" who then does a mass shooting. Who do you think is in line to get sued next, possibly lose their license and their livelihood? There is a lot of judgment and more than a little guesswork in who is safe and who is not. There is no clearcut litmus test saying who is okay and who is not. Providers are going to be very cautious and if they err, I think most will err on the side of safety. I did.

In my 30 years of practice, I have once been called upon to make a professional recommendation about a person possessing firearms. The weight of liability did flash before my eyes, but it was my lack of certainty that guided my decision. I felt bad for that chap but felt at ease for making a safe recommendation for the greater good.

I might add that news articles say this person was in treatment. So access to treatment and treatment aren't always the answers.. Treatment is not foolproof.

Click to expand...

So we agree, then, that there are problems with the idea of a "psychiatric test" for firearm ownership.

BPPLEE said:

HIPAA protects protected health information from being disclosed so if someone is purchasing a firearm, applying for a job as a police officer or applying for a gun permit their health information is protected and disclosing a problem with depression or bipolar disorder is pretty much voluntary. There is a fine line between the need to restrict certain individuals from owning firearms and the right to privacy. Do you want to be disqualified from a job or from purchasing a firearm because something bad happened to you at one time and you were depressed about it? Even though you are fine now?

Click to expand...

Well, the Congress that wrote the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 can write an exception to it.

RDKirk said:

Well, the Congress that wrote the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 can write an exception to it.

Click to expand...

Yeah they could

RDKirk said:

I steadfastly opposed that opinion.

It should be me.

Click to expand...

RDKirk said:

I used the explicit phrase "not accountable" -- twice--for a reason.

Are you arguing that the government that won't allow itself to be accountable for my protection can morally prevent me from providing for my own protection? Is that the debate we're having?

Click to expand...

No....not at all.

I'm saying that the government won't make itself "accountable" (whatever you propose that means) for your safety because it's impossible to guarantee your safety.

BPPLEE said:

No matter what restrictions you put on firearms even making them illegal they will always be available. Look at illegal narcotics. I can go to a city I’ve never been to and in two hours I could find someone to sell me drugs. What makes you think it would be any different with firearms?

Click to expand...

So your solution is to surrender to the escalation of firearms violence? Would similarly give up on controlling heroin since if you really try it can be found?

BPPLEE said:

HIPAA protects protected health information from being disclosed so if someone is purchasing a firearm, applying for a job as a police officer or applying for a gun permit their health information is protected and disclosing a problem with depression or bipolar disorder is pretty much voluntary. There is a fine line between the need to restrict certain individuals from owning firearms and the right to privacy. Do you want to be disqualified from a job or from purchasing a firearm because something bad happened to you at one time and you were depressed about it? Even though you are fine now?

Click to expand...

HIPAA protects protected health information from being disclosed to people who are not authorized to know it. As pointed out in an earlier post, there are certain medical conditions that you cannot have if you want to fly a plane, so the FAA has medical examiners who are authorized to access health information as part of the licensing and certification process for pilots. I imagine that something similar could be set up for firearms licensing.

BPPLEE said:

Many people have guns they inherited or purchased from other people or at trade shows.

Click to expand...

And those people would need to go through the background check process in order to keep those guns. Not all of them would, of course, and not all of those who didn't would get caught, but the situation certainly wouldn't be any worse than it is now - they already have the guns.

RDKirk said:

So we agree, then, that there are problems with the idea of a "psychiatric test" for firearm ownership.

Click to expand...

I agree there are problems with a psychiatric test for firearm ownership. It is just not as simple as we might prefer it to be. Countless numbers of people are depressed, angry, prone to rage, have been bullied - you name it - and yet they manage to navigate life without picking up a gun and killing people. Psychological tests and assessments can identify these features, but they don't identify who will act in a heinous fashion and who never will. It boils down to clinical judgment...best professional opinion based upon the available information. Or, an educated guess if you will.

In the United States, therapists have a duty to warn if a patient threatens another person or persons. There is no duty to warn about someone who is depressed, prone to rage, a bullying victim, etc., and who also owns a gun but verbalizes no threat. Duty to warn precedent may be found here: Tarasoff vs. Regents of the University of California.

A therapist has no obligation to report someone they find creepy and scary. But sit in their chair and calmly say you are going to kill someone and they are going to pick up the phone. Therapy consumers know this as it's also considered to be ethical practice as part of Informed Consent to explain to therapy consumers the limits of confidentiality. They have probably been informed in the first session or in a written document they sign that there is no confidentiality related to suicidal intention, child abuse, or threats or plans to harm someone. Some states add elder abuse as a legal reporting requirement as well.

Hans Blaster said:

So your solution is to surrender to the escalation of firearms violence? Would similarly give up on controlling heroin since if you really try it can be found?

Click to expand...

I guess it’s similar to your dismissal of school resource officers because some have failed. And yes we need to do something different about illegal narcotics what we are doing is not working

RocksInMyHead said:

HIPAA protects protected health information from being disclosed to people who are not authorized to know it. As pointed out in an earlier post, there are certain medical conditions that you cannot have if you want to fly a plane, so the FAA has medical examiners who are authorized to access health information as part of the licensing and certification process for pilots. I imagine that something similar could be set up for firearms licensing.

Click to expand...

It could but as of now it’s not and you didn’t answer the question

Ana the Ist said:

No such thing.

Click to expand...

With obvious exception of intersex folks.