Because you can't make a nonconfidential record system and expect people who have an interest in that system to not get access to it. If you make a record system any gunshop can access, then employers are going to get access to it, too.
This is pretty curious stuff, because:
A) The persons entire record would NOT be on file.
B) The 'system' would never be non-confidential.
C) The Gunstores would NEVER have unfettered access to anything other than a request for a check via their local licensing agent (ie the Police force).
It would be utterly amazing to me that the US could not come up with a system of basic checks and balances that can be undertaken on a confidential basis and maintain its integrity. It similarly strikes me as an amazing suggestion that your automatic assumption is that your local governing bodies are so inept, incompetent, and corrupt that they would without a doubt balls up even the most simple and routine of tasks to such an amazing magnitude of error.
Well, then perhaps when they conduct the background check, it just comes back "no sale" and the citizen who was rejected is obligated to find out, leaving the gun store owner not knowing why he can't sell the gun to this person, only that he can't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How would it maintain confidentiality, when you're confiding confidential information to gun store owners, who have no duty of confidence? Even if you made sure it was 100% perfect, you're breaching one of the few walls of privacy left.
Your claim was that the ONLY way forward was by giving a 'full history' of the person to the gunstore owners.
You maintain confidentiality by having the POLICE doing the actual check.
The Gun store clerk fills a request, files it with his local station.
Reply comes back sale or no sale.
No breach of privacy here.
This is pretty basic stuff.
|
Mental illness and instability are connected.
That is why it is called mental illness.
Not all diagnosis mean someone is dangerous, but some do.
Mental illness does not automatically entail instability (unless you take a very broad and non-useful definition of instability, which would also include very dubious and downright silly occurrences even "normal" people do). I'm shocked someone who supposedly work with mental illness (although not in a treatment capacity) makes this correlation so easily. Do you perhaps think you're tainted by the people you encounter in your job and can't speak for people with mental health problems in general?
Also, please cite the basis diagnoses which automatically label someone as dangerous. This is such an individual process that I'm curious which ones you'll try to label as equaling dangerous.
If a therapist says someone should not have a firearm, I think that is a valid diagnosis.
I'm not playing the strawman game of what ifs. If someone who treats people with mental illness as their profession, with all of the requisite certifications that entails, believes someone should not be able to access firearms, then that person should not be able to access firearms pending a review.
As I've said, the same licensed mental healh professional could have someone held against their will pending the same type of review.
|
|
Okay. What sort of mental illness will make you ineligible to purchase guns? How will you distribute this information? What promises of confidentiality are there? You keep going on about how these two specific people should not have been able to buy guns, but you're not proposing how you'd implement that without breaking down medical confidentiality. I'm not eager to have a mental illness register turn into the next do-not-fly list, nor do I want mental illness to be the new version credit checks before you're hired.How are you going to stop mentally ill people from buying weapons without telling people who don't have a duty of confidentiality that the buyer is mentally ill?
If a therapist flags them, they are flagged in the database. Currently the database gives no reason for why anyone is tagged as not eligible to purchase, this would be no different.
You notify them they have been tagged as ineligible to purchase firearms and set up an appeal process.
Not. Complicated.
Would have prevented Jared Loughner and Seung-Hui Cho from getting the guns they used, and if an intelligent system is set up it could have also been used to notify those working with them they were attempting to purchase fire arms, which would have saved lives.
|
|
How do you plan to keep them from getting gasoline and household cleaners for bombs?Turning those into weapons is already illegal for everyone, regardless of history, so I'm not sure what your point is.
It is the classic "If not guns, people would use sticks" argument.
Only I can't shoot up a movie theater with a stick.
People with intent to do evil can do evil. Making it easier to do so is foolish.
If a therapist says someone should not have a firearm, I think that is a valid diagnosis.
Ok, so do you go to their house and take away the guns they already have?
I think what you're proposing would precipitate more problems than it would solve, first by creating a conflict with gun owners, and secondly with people who might need a little help being afraid to get it because they'd get their guns taken away getting worse until they need more help than there is to give.
The only way you could handle this reasonably is to remove the check made by parties who aren't in confidence, and issue licenses to allow people to buy guns, but that's not politically viable in the US.
You are still way out to sea trying to link this with someones employment.
Sure, people could be licensed to buy firearms, or checks can be made. Both of these could be put into effect confidentially and at no point compromise their employment nor make any record 'public'.
A gunstore could simply arrange for you to sign a consent to suitability check that (along with satisfactory primary identification) could be submitted from them to a Police database and then they would be simply returned a yes/no answer.
This in no way infringes your privacy. Not one iota.
Your 'potential employer' has no way of getting any information UNLESS they are sending you to go buy a gun, in which case all they MIGHT know is you didn't get one. Protip, if you KNOW you are a problem, don't apply for gun-centric occupations. And if you did, your privacy went out the window because they will do a psych evaluation anyhow.
Your comment about the register breaching privacy falls flat.
As an aside to the debate, I find it pretty galling that people cite their individual privacy as a rationale; quaint that they feel their 'right' to individual privacy demands more respect than other peoples right to safety. They want their own rights, yet are happy to deny thousands their rights.
{unhides thread, catches up on unread posts} ...
I know that this event is still fresh in all our minds, and with the frequent media coverage, has probably worn down the emotional reserves and patience of many of us. If you are like me, you may even be feeling twinges of buried memories from other, not-so-distant horrible acts. I hid the thread because it seemed to me to have jumped the tracks and was past the point of being helpful to anyone, and frankly I don't have the reserves to be as courteous and respectful as I would need to be in replying.
However, I just now came upon this article... It is a look back at the July 22nd, 2011 attack in Norway by Anders Behring Breivik that took seventy-seven innocent lives, and how the survivors (and country) have dealt with it. It is an emotionally tough read, especially now, but I link to it to possibly offer a bit of perspective and hopefully a bit of hope and solace.
{rehides thread}
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, BNW, if a certified therapist thinks they shouldn't have access to firearms, maybe they shouldn't.
Mayby they shouldn't. They probably shouldn't. They almost definitely shouldn't.
But we do not just hand one person, especially a person who is not elected by the people, appointed by our representatives, beholden to the people, or even officially part of the government, the power to take away someone's rights. Commitment is a temporary procedure before a substantial amount of due process kicks in.Abuse is limited because of its own severity and expense.
Putting a name into a database is so cheap and easy that there's almost no reason the government wouldn't do it at the drop of a hat. Getting off the list would likely become a pain because no judge would want their name associated with someone coming off the list and then committing a crime.
If someone is crazy enough to lock away it should be pretty plain to the judge. Deciding whether or not someone like this shooter, who was highly intelligent, capable, and holding down a rather difficult job would involve a level of subjectivity that I'm not comfortable with.
I really can't see this doing more good than harm. If someone is on the fence about whether they feel like stocking up on an arsenal or talking over those feelings with someone this would drive them away from getting help.
Mind you, confiscating someone's property is a completely different mechanism that not selling someone an item to begin with, which is all we've discussed so far in this thread.
If you don't move onto that stage its going to be a largely pointless gesture.
There's a lot of the whole gun culture I just don't get. I own more than one gun, but it's just not a very big part of my life.
I don't own any guns. My idea of home defense is a large dog and bigger sword.
I can't imagine feeling so scared all the time that I'd think it necessary to leave the house with a gun every day. Given how little the current administration has said about gun control, I'm really rather befuddled by everyone who seems to think we're three steps from the ATF showing up on our doorsteps.
Well, this sentiment exists without the government actually doing anything. What would the sentiment become if the government actually WAS preventing people from buying guns on the word of a shrink?
As to the questions about the fact that the suspect was apprehended so easily, here is what the story now seems to be:
The suspect entered the theater carrying a Glock with an extended magazine capable of holding 40 rounds. He also had a shotgun with an unknown amount of ammunition and the AR15 with a 100 round drum on it that was purchased separately. This particular type/brand of drum has been known to jam when the gun is being fired rapidly. After dispelling two canisters of a tear gas like substance, he opened fire.
One witness claims the gunman pointed at him, but then the gun jammed. The suspect then exited the theater, probably to retrieve more ammunition/weapons from his car which was parked just outside the door. It is at this point, when he is carrying no ammunition, that the police apprehend him.
IMO, he didn't anticipate such a quick response, and certainly not for his gun to jam.
Mental illness and instability are connected.
That is why it is called mental illness.
Not all diagnosis mean someone is dangerous, but some do.
Mental illness does not automatically entail instability (unless you take a very broad and non-useful definition of instability, which would also include very dubious and downright silly occurrences even "normal" people do). I'm shocked someone who supposedly work with mental illness (although not in a treatment capacity) makes this correlation so easily. Do you perhaps think you're tainted by the people you encounter in your job and can't speak for people with mental health problems in general?
Also, please cite the basis diagnoses which automatically label someone as dangerous. This is such an individual process that I'm curious which ones you'll try to label as equaling dangerous.If a therapist says someone should not have a firearm, I think that is a valid diagnosis.
I'm not playing the strawman game of what ifs. If someone who treats people with mental illness as their profession, with all of the requisite certifications that entails, believes someone should not be able to access firearms, then that person should not be able to access firearms pending a review.
As I've said, the same licensed mental healh professional could have someone held against their will pending the same type of review.
You're skirting the issue and not answering what I asked. Give examples of such standard diagnoses which would automatically label someone as dangerous.
Yes it does. It's a background check. It by definition infringes on privacy. .
Your privacy is well umm, private, until YOU elect to undertake an activity which asks you to submit to certain information to be checked - with your consent. You dont have to submit to the check, because you dont have to undertake the activity.
I also note you keep perpetuating the 'but it will leak' argument like it is a given. Apart from your deep suspicions, there is nothing to suggest that this iis the case. Surprisingly, Government agencies happen to have significant information about us that isn't available for public consumption.
By the way, no one (apart from you) is suggesting your employer could/should/would be able to access the information, so I'm now further further perplexed by you now throwing in more hyperbole about employer knowing your loan eligibility.
Look at the end of the day you kicked off by stating that an employer would be able to get at your history. This is just not possible, even the Police who would be the ultimate authority in pass/fail the tests wouldn't have your full file. There is no way your employer could access your history. They couldn't even glean if you were eligible for a firearm or not - not at all.
Your assertion just hasn't stacked up to scrutiny.
It might also surprise you to note that employers CAN AND DO have the right to assess your eligibility for certain roles in society - try applying for a job in the military, especially ones where security clearance is needed... you would find them to be VERY invasive.
It is ALWAYS YOUR RIGHT to not undergo those checks and maintain your privacy, however, they also have the right to not have to waive their right to security and employ you blind.
Yes. They did do that. In a landmark decision from 1819. (The Chief Justice at the time had been appointed by the second president of the US, in fact.) Applying the equal protection clause of the Constitution to corporations celebrated its 125th birthday last year.
Please. Less silly statements about US jurisprudence and more good stuff about mitigating the causes of crime.
Clever. You know exactly what I was talking about and it's basically the same people who have voted 5-4 on several recent hot button issues. Sorry if I don't give much credence to the independence of that particular court.
Yeah, but they aren't giving that information to anyone else. Nobody in the world can ask for my FBI file but me and people with a strict duty of confidentiality. My juvenile criminal record (which doesn't exist but whatever) can only be opened under strictly limited circumstances. My medical records require a specific waiver from me to be accessed, unless it's a doctor asking for them in a situation where my life is in danger and I lack the capacity to give consent and even then they have restrictions.
OK I'll give you a fourth or fifth crack at it then...
Please elaborate on how, exactly, does a Yes/No check carried out via a Police agency which is in turn answered by a Yes/No flag from a Govt Mental health authority (as well as any other agencies that might create a flag situation, including but not limited to other federal agencies) equate to your employer being able to get access to your entire mental health history?
Your credit check is not an invasion of your privacy, because any information on it is information which you consented to have made available.
Now its interesting that you say the FBI file is all perfectly legit and safe, yet holding equal files of note with other agencies is making them publicly available.
You might be curious to note that several countries restrict firearm sales in just this way, with the gun store sending your written application to the Police, and the Police in turn providing the gun store with a Yes/No, and sending you a notification as to why (although it shouldn't come as news). Similarly it is common practice in several countries to perform a check on people who intend to work with children, you sign a form and it is sent to the Police who then check your bona-fides and send a yes/no.
You'll note that none of this information is available to anyone outside your transaction, and even then, the 3rd party (employer/gun store lodging WITH YOUR CONSENT) only gets a yes/no with no explanation.
You need a drivers licence to operate a motor vehicle on the roads, you suggesting asking drivers to be licenced is an invasion of their privacy?
Anyhow, the challenge stands - you made a claim, I'm just asking you to show where the loophole is. I would like you to substantiate how this blind yes/no system run by the Police is going to allow your (potential) employer to access your psych record.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really? my primary use for guns is gathering food, not killing humans. Many if not most american gun owners believe likewise.
Killing, period. What they kill is determined by the person that aims it, but killing is its primary purpose.