With the renewed gun control debate (conversation) following the Oregon junior college shootings everyone is asking what can we do on each news channel to reduce lone wolf mass shootings?
  I ask what can I do to make my part of the world safer for my loved ones? My immediate response is: " Increase the number of concealed firearm carriers". It does not bother me one whit that a person other than myself maybe carrying a firearm (concealed or open) to protect their family and loved ones. Hopefully we never have to make that decision.  
    What I offer to do for this month of October 2015 is a free single firearm transfer to anyone showing a CCW permit at time of transfer.
This is what I consider a positive step toward gun reform and public safety.

What can be done is pretty easy, considering the Feds now have access to all of our medical records.  Anyone who is on any kind of drug for mental instability should be flagged and investigated, IF-WHEN, cross referenced, they find a firearm transfer in the last 10 years.  The nutjob that did this latest one was on a board for crazies.  In fact, weren't the last 5-6 people all pretty much nuts that committed these crimes?  Yeah, it wouldn't have gotten the one guy that killed his mom and took her guns, but it may have stopped the others who flew under the radar.

I'm all for everyone having firearms, and all for personal responsibility with protecting yourself and loved ones, but I'm totally against some bi-polar maniac running around with a gun, that dependent on the moment, could be happy go lucky, or suicidal/homicidal.  I'm torn between the Constitution and "shall not be infringed" and the general public safety.

I like guns just about as much as the next person on here. But I agree with medical. The fuckwad from Colorado was a perfect example. He should have been 96'ed and closely watched. All of the people who do these shootings are beyond the help of counseling and there were plenty of warning signs. They need advanced professional help in every form. Does the person who is feeling down because he or she just lost a kid, job, SO, dog, cat, etc. need to be stripped of their rights and ask questions later? No not in my opinion. But they should not feel ashamed to seek help. Mental health still has a stigma to it and that is the problem. People don't choose to have these mental illnesses. I hope one day soon we can treat the condition just as effectively as we can treat other illnesses that were once incredibly devastating. Look how far we have come on Ebola, polio, mumps, etc.

Would a CCW have helped? I honestly don't know. We can play the what if scenario game forever but whats done is done. I would like to think it would have but what if they were the first person shot? I always think, the open carry idiots that walk around, if I was a crazy lunatic hell bent on killing people, they are going first so I don't have any competition. I like and support CCW but not open carry.


My $0.02 and mine alone.

Just for comparison here, my wife got a prescription for a sleeping pill to help her insomnia. She wanted something that wasn't addictive, and wouldn't make her head fuzzy during the day.

Turns out, the sleeping pill she got was an antidepressant. It didn't work for her (weird mood-altering side effects), but there's thousands of people on this drug to help regulate their sleep cycle, not because of mental illness.

That, and there's tons of people with mental illnesses who aren't on prescriptions, and literally millions of people who are on prescription medications who aren't a danger to anyone. Then, there's plenty of dangerously mentally-ill people who have never been to a doctor for it.

Our mental health system is so messed up that you can't use it at all for any sort of gun control scheme like you guys suggest.


Besides, if some sort of no-guns-for-crazies bill passed, how long would it be until "wanting to carry a gun" was added to the list of symptoms for dangerous mental illness?

I like you.

Do you have a shop or are you a table top guy?  Where are you located?

Yeah.  Using mental health records to ban people from firearms is a bad idea.

First - If people know that talking to a shrink & getting the help they need will prevent them from buying a deer rifle, they aren't going to to talk to anyone, increasing their danger to themselves and the people around them.

Second - "Mental Illness" is an extraordinarily fluid term.  When I took my abnormal psych class the first thing the prof told us is that everyone has some marker for mental illness.  Thus, such a restriction can very easily be used for a wide spread ban.

Finally - Mental issues are often temporary.  When my FIL passed my wife took it pretty hard & was prescribed a mild anti depressant.  She was on it for 6 months.  Should she now be forbidden to own a gun for the rest of her life because she had a hard spot in life and got help?  I don't think so.

Good points both of you.

 

I have heard but have never found a credible citation for it, that Charles Mason tested in the "normal" area on the MMPI. Not sure when the MMPI-2 came out so it might have been that one.

He's in Eureka and worth the drive if you're not nearby.

While you're in town, check out Tier One Weapons next to Ace Hardware as well.

That's a shame.

I'm in the KC area, but Eureka isn't too far off the path I take when I visit my parents.

I'll have to check them out the next time I'm through.

Is it the one across from Super Smoker? I like that store.

That's Doc's, on the north side of 44.  Both of the aforementioned places are on the south side.

This is an extremely sensitive area to talk about, but dealing with restricting access of firearms from people with mental illness is something we are going to have to do if we want these types of shootings to be reduced. I agree that it can be a slippery slope. I agree that some mental health issues are temporary. I somewhat agree that it might prevent some people from seeking help, although I think that argument is probably more theoretical than actual. People with mental illness don't seek help for a whole lot of reasons, mostly because they don't think they have a problem, they're ashamed, or they've sought help and didn't get the help they needed. The mental health professionals are great at diagnosing a disorder and putting a label on it, but they aren't nearly as good at actually treating the illness. The usual response is to prescribe drugs that the patient doesn't want to take because they don't work or the side effects make them feel like walking zombies. I'm not necessarily criticizing mental health providers...they try their best, but they're overwhelmed by huge numbers of patients and the treatment options are limited and every patient reacts differently. They're also dealing with HIPPA laws regarding patient confidentiality and worrying that they will be sued if they say someone is or is not "dangerous".

Now for something that will really start the flames at me. A good number of people in the mental health provider system are themselves suffering from, have suffered from in the past, or have close family members that are suffering from mental illness. This is the result of people trying to study, understand, and help their own issues, or trying to help a loved one suffering from mental illness. At this point, I have probably angered a lot of people for even uttering those words, but IN MY OPINION, I believe it is true. As a personal example, I had a cousin who started having some mental health issues in her late teens, went to college and became a practicing psychiatrist, and eventually got worse, and wound up taking her own life. I have also been a full time police officer in the St. Louis area for over thirty five years and have been dealing with the mentally ill and the doctors and other providers that try to help them on a daily basis. Again, I understand the pain and concerns that having a family member with mental illness brings. I don't fault those that seek to work in a profession to help themselves or a family member. But what I am saying is that these people do have a certain bias towards putting the needs of the mentally ill above the rest of the public.

Thirty years ago, many mentally ill people where placed in large facilities such as Malcomb Bliss hospital. It was not a nice place. Large numbers of mentally ill persons were "warehoused"  in institutions like it because no one knew what else to do with them. They were often kept docile through tranquilizers and didn't see much real treatment in the traditional sense. Then there was a move in the mental health field to do away with this practice and mainstream patients into society, arguing that warehousing was inhumane and that most of the mentally ill were not dangerous and would be better off being treated on an outpatient basis. That may or may not be true, but I can tell you for a fact that the end result is that many dangerous mentally ill people are now walking around every day because there is nowhere to put them. The mentally ill person does something or hurts someone, the police respond and take the "consumer in crisis" to a local hospital with a psychiatric ward, who keeps them for a day or two and releases them because they don't have the space or resources to deal with them. And none of this is ever entered into any database that prevents the mentally ill person from walking into a gunstore, lying on the application form about ever having mental illness, and "legally" buying a gun. I know...I've tried. I've had armed, barricaded suspects involved in ten hour standoffs with the police get out on bail and walk into Walmart to buy more guns. I've pleaded with federal officials to flag certain persons in the NICS check to prevent them from buying guns and they can't do it because of HIPPA laws.

I'm a gun guy. I want every law abiding citizen that wants to have and carry a gun to protect themselves to have one. I also don't want to unduly punish families dealing with mental illness, but we have to get real. We have to start erring on the side of sanity and flagging persons who have been involuntarily committed to psychiatric wards from getting guns and slaughtering innocent citizens.

That will already flag you on a NICS check.

No, it won't. Not unless they were adjudicated by a judge. I'm talking about being committed by the police or a family member. That absolutely does not flag anyone on a NICS check.

See the problem with all of this is you cannot stop evil from happening.  You just can't.  So ok, you do like Australia and take all the guns.  Sure you slow crazy people from using a gun to kill a  mass of people, but if you're crazy enough to want to do that, wouldn't you just move to another "tool" say a pressure cooker full of nails?  or a truck full of ammonium nitrate?  We have enough safe guards to block the most obvious from getting guns.  Beyond that you're trying to be all Tom Cruise and catching future crime before it happens.  Not possible without compromising your rights and I mean other rights than 2A.

First off, the ATF doesn't specifically release the cause of a denial, so lets not pretend that either of us know exactly what does or doesn't flag a person.

I do, however, remember when I worked at a gun store and a guy who voluntarily committed himself as a young man got denied.  He said that was the only thing in his past that could have caused it.

Who knows.

Second, cops & family can't just arbitrarily toss a person into a mental ward.  They can get a 96 hour evaluation if the person poses an immediate threat to themselves.  If they need further help is does require a judge signing off on it.

At least that's how it works in Missouri.  The other 49 states has 49 different ways of doing things, making the task of prohibiting people based on mental health nearly impossible.

ATF doesn't run NICS, the FBI does. No, it's true cops and family can't arbitrarily toss a person into a mental ward. We have to sign a sworn affidavit based on personal observations that the person poses a potential threat to themselves or another person. Despite your recollection that someone who voluntarily committed himself was denied on a NICS check, that was not the reason.  Who knows? I do. Again, I've been doing this a very long time, I'm specially trained in dealing with mentally ill persons, and I have talked to  multiple state and federal officials about trying to change this situation. When someone tries to kill themselves or someone else and they are physically placed in a mental ward against their will, they should not be allowed to purchase guns until they have been professionally vetted by at least one, and preferably two psychiatrists, I think this would  be a reasonable compromise between 2nd amendment rights and public safety. Again, IN MY OPINION.

All that proves is that you've got your head screwed on wrong.

"Compromising" away our 2nd amendment rights doesn't make the public safer, it puts the public in more danger.

The shooting at Umpqua Community College is a perfect example of this.

Do you know why the shooter was able to shoot as many people as he did?  It was because someone decided to make a "compromise between 2nd amendment rights and public safety" and forbid guns on the UCC campus, leaving those students helpless against the shooter.

Compromising our 2nd amendment rights away isn't the solution to these shootings.  Compromising our 2nd amendment rights away is why these shootings are so deadly.

This isn't about you and me. I respect your opinion.  As I said in my original post, I'm all for the 2nd amendment and the right to carry. I wish there had been armed officers (or licensed civilians) at that college to end the shooting earlier. What I'm saying is that there are lots of dangerous, mentally ill persons that are known to the police and there's no good mechanism in place to effectively deal with them before something bad happens. I'm also saying that if we're going to have NICS checks and measures like that, they should actually work, and not be feel good window dressing (like the TSA...don't get me started on those guys!) If you think that means my head is screwed on wrong, so be it.

There is no "reasonable compromise."

Look at each of the mass shooters in the last several years. Yeah, maybe a couple of them may have been bad enough that somebody should have said, "no, you can't have a gun." But... nobody did. Their families, the people closest to them, the ones in best position to say something, didn't say anything for fear of the consequences for that person. There's nothing in most of their histories that is actually a red flag.

Weirdoes? Yeah.

Things that look bad in hindsight? Yeah.

Things that appear in most peoples history at some point? Absolutely.

Things that are so varied and vague that it would be impossible to make a database of them? Definitely.

But no, there's absolutely nothing that you could use to deny someone the right to self-defense, unless you're willing to accept an awful lot of false positives. As in, enough false positives to begin mass disarmament of the populace.

There is just absolutely no way you're going to find – in advance – the people who are going to shoot up a mall or theater or college. Bad things happen. It's part of life. Most of them, there's no way to predict it or prevent it. You just make sure that you're wearing your safety belt, you've got health insurance, a fire extinguisher in your kitchen, $500 in your savings account, and a gun on your hip.

In other words, you act like an adult and prepare to mitigate the damage from life's unexpected events, instead of acting like a child and trying to find a magical blankie to hide beneath and pretend that the monster can't get you.

You know what? I've thought some more about this, and I'm not done.

If you believe that fundamental rights – something so fundamental as the right to protect yourself – should be taken away from someone based on nothing more than an accusation, with absolutely no proof, then you're not American. And fuck you.

This is where I'm at too.

Being in the aviation world for over 20 yrs, I can tell you if the government gets this power, we're all f'd.  Right now if you admit to anxiety/depression/etc, have taken anti depressants, or someone calls the FAA hotline and says "this mo-fo is crazy", they will suspend or revoke your medical if you don't present yourself for immediate evaluation.  You have to pay for the exams, lawyer, and everything else because if you don't, good luck and sit back and wait a few years.  FMLA is only 12 weeks and fed is still saying they're running behind because of the sequester.  You are proven guilty until you spend a sh!tload of money and time *trying* to prove otherwise in this process.  Have seen several, normal, healthy guys have their careers ruined (unless you work for the FAA, then they'll let you work without a valid medical......unreal.)

In reference to Copper's statements, in STL area if you have a family member who is exhibiting signs of mental illness, in conjunction with other modifiers such as threatening to harm yourself or others an affidavit can be completed by family or officer and the person in question is then subjected to a 96 hour mental diagnostic.  Depending on where the subject was taken for the 96hr eval, they may go the full ride or be released prior to depending on the amount of available beds and the dr doing the evaluation.  

Unless the patient is adjudicated by a judge (ie: sorry sir but you are truly nuts) then the stay does not effect purchasing of weapons.  


On a side note:  if there is ever a place in this world that is haunted, no matter what you do, salt the earth or  turn it into Malcom Bliss will be that place.  Think of any horror movie you ever saw involving insane asylums:  MB is 10 times worse

Giving the federal government more control into our lives is a mistake on any level. Why do people get the urge to feel something must be done to try and control someone else's behavior. There is evil in this world  that will always find ways to do evil things.

No doubt in my mind that a dot gov shrink would say that every ar15.com member that I've ever met was insane. That's not a power any fucked up psyc needs to have.

I have a novel idea: How about we get rid of Gun Free Zones instead of all this sensible gun control we keep hearing about.

Preaching to the choir.

It doesn't fit those who want the control's narrative, so...