Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11   Report Post  
Old August 12th 19, 08:14 PM posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2007
Posts: 33,539
Default No mental illness here!

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 13:32:04 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/12/19 1:17 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 8/12/2019 7:57 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/12/19 7:22 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 8/11/2019 1:04 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/11/19 12:39 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 05:44:16 -0700 (PDT), Its Me
wrote:

An article from NBC News says:

"Experts, however, have said there's no evidence that people with
mental illness are at a higher risk for committing gun violence.

"It is important to note that the overwhelming majority of people
with mental illness are not violent and far more likely to be
victims of violent crime than perpetrators of violence," the
American Psychiatric Association said in a statement this week.
"Rhetoric that argues otherwise will further stigmatize and
interfere with people accessing needed treatment. Individuals can
also be emboldened to act violently by the public discourse and
divisive rhetoric.""

Sane, rational people don't pick up a weapon and kill multiple,
random people.* They are mentally ill.* The APA is clueless.* It
sounds like they just want to protect their income stream.

I have been saying this is the position of mental health professionals
for years. They think that as soon as you identify people as having a
mental issue they will become stigmatized so people will be reluctant
to seek help.
It is similar to how they talked about AIDS.
That explains why doctors want to use blanket gun regulation instead
of just trying to identify the dangerous people.




Stigma is a huge issue preventing the mentally ill from seeking
help. There are other issues, of course, such as availability of
treatment, availability of transportation, funding, et cetera, but
stigma is a biggie.

Comments about mental health professionals "protecting the income
stream" are just ignorant, right-wing nonsense.



Although I agree with the concept of background checks for all gun
purchases and/or permits, a background check is only as good as the
information it contains.

The HIPAA privacy laws should be re-visited and re-written to allow
mental health professionals to alert law enforcement officials of
potentially dangerous and mentally unstable people.* This should
be included in the background check data.

Mike DeWine, (R) of Ohio has introduced an idea that is similar in
concept to the "Section 38" statute in Massachusetts that allows family
members, police and, in some cases, health care officials to
petition a court to have a drug addict or alcoholic remanded to
the care and custody of the state for treatment.* Because it is
court ordered, this information can be included in background
checks.




Any number of states have laws that allow a licensed mental health
professional to issue an order to have an individual hospitalized for
a limited number of days for a complete mental health workup and, at
the end of that period, there may be a formal court hearing on whether
the confinement and treatment should be continued. There are barriers
to the treatment, though, because in many states and locales within
those states, there is a severe shortage of facilities and beds. In
many cases, especially for substance abusers, the course of confined
treatment lasts only long enough for the patient to get sober. Hey,
this is America, right?


I'll defer to your more "expert" interpretation of applicable laws but
my understanding is that mental health professionals cannot "issue" an
order to temporarily hospitalize anyone for further evaluation.

They can petition a court to do so.* I believe only a court order can
involuntarily hospitalize anyone.

But, this has nothing to do with HIPAA privacy laws and background
checks.* If a person with mental health issues that could put the
public at risk, that information should somehow be included in a
standard background check done for gun purchases or ownership.



Who puts that info "on the record"? That's not a rhetorical question...I
don't know the answer.

In many states, a mental health professional may sign a document that
directs the police, if necessary, to pick up a person and take them to a
mental health facility for a three day visit and treatment. The police
can do this on their own. If a person won't go voluntarily to a
facility, the police can enforce an order from a mental health
professional, a judge, or perhaps a family member.

In practice, after a three day commitment, judges are very reluctant to
hospitalize a person for a longer stay. That's the way it is.



Every Baker Act I have ever even heard of was as the result of someone
calling the cops because of a disturbance. This is from watching
neighbors get carted away and also from one of my daughter's friends
who is a psychologist in one of those county facilities (the same one
who worked in the prison system for a while). There is not a lot of
meaningful "evaluation" going on there. It is mostly just a drunk tank
for violent drunks/druggies who haven't hurt anyone bad enough to be
charged with assault or OD's not bad enough to require an ER visit.
Typically if a family member called the cops, they all decide to turn
it into a Baker Act instead of an arrest.

For the purposes of gun control, this is actually a hinderance because
nothing will show up on a background check of any kind. It is also why
families choose this route. They get the person arrested and out of
the house but they don't have a criminal record. In fact we don't
really have a way of knowing if any of these shooters were treated in
a similar way or how often it happened. I know the guy next to me was
Baker Acted up around 30 times when the family lost count. They
finally did press charges a couple of times and threw him out.
The only thing that pops on a record check are the charges they
pressed. (and some DUIs)

  #12   Report Post  
Old August 12th 19, 08:52 PM posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2007
Posts: 33,539
Default No mental illness here!

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 14:35:13 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 13:45:29 -0400 (EDT), Justan Ohlphart wrote:

John H. Wrote in message:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 07:22:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:On 8/11/2019 1:04 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 8/11/19 12:39 PM, wrote: On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 05:44:16 -0700 (PDT), Its Me wrote: An article from NBC News says: "Experts, however, have said there's no evidence that people with mental illness are at a higher risk for committing gun violence. "It is important to note that the overwhelming majority of people with mental illness are not violent and far more likely to be victims of violent crime than perpetrators of violence," the American Psychiatric Association said in a statement this week. "Rhetoric that argues otherwise will further stigmatize and interfere with people accessing needed treatment. Individuals can also be emboldened to act violently by the public discourse and divisive rhetoric."" Sane, rational people don't pick up a weapon and

kill multiple, random people. They are mentally ill. The APA is clueless. It sounds like they just want to protect their income stream. I have been saying this is the position of mental health professionals for years. They think that as soon as you identify people as having a mental issue they will become stigmatized so people will be reluctant to seek help. It is similar to how they talked about AIDS. That explains why doctors want to use blanket gun regulation instead of just trying to identify the dangerous people. Stigma is a huge issue preventing the mentally ill from seeking help. There are other issues, of course, such as availability of treatment, availability of transportation, funding, et cetera, but stigma is a biggie. Comments about mental health professionals "protecting the income stream" are just ignorant, right-wing nonsense. Although I agree with the concept of background checks for all gun
purchases and/or permits, a background check is only as good as theinformation it contains.The HIPAA privacy laws should be re-visited and re-written to allowmental health professionals to alert law enforcement officials ofpotentially dangerous and mentally unstable people. This shouldbe included in the background check data.Mike DeWine, (R) of Ohio has introduced an idea that is similar inconcept to the "Section 38" statute in Massachusetts that allows familymembers, police and, in some cases, health care officials topetition a court to have a drug addict or alcoholic remanded tothe care and custody of the state for treatment. Because it iscourt ordered, this information can be included in backgroundchecks.---This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.comIf Bubba has his girlfriend buy him a gun, more stringent background checks are meaningless - exceptfor law-abiding citizens.

Aren't there criminal laws that deal with straw man purchases?


Criminals don't give a **** about laws. Girl friend buys the gun, gives it to boyfriend, calls cops
and reports it stolen.

Easy peasy!


That sounds like a lot of work in a country where there are tens of
millions of totally untraceable (once stolen) guns floating around. It
is hard to find statistics but guns are one of the most traded things
in the subculture of stolen property, just based on the number we hear
about that are taken from homes and cars, including cop cars.
If the cops actually did trace guns used in street crimes, having your
girlfriend buy it is not going to trick anyone but they don't usually
go to that much effort, if they find the gun at all.
  #13   Report Post  
Old August 12th 19, 09:10 PM posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Dec 2015
Posts: 9,508
Default No mental illness here!

On 8/12/19 2:43 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 07:57:30 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/12/19 7:22 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 8/11/2019 1:04 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/11/19 12:39 PM,
wrote:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 05:44:16 -0700 (PDT), Its Me
wrote:

An article from NBC News says:

"Experts, however, have said there's no evidence that people with
mental illness are at a higher risk for committing gun violence.

"It is important to note that the overwhelming majority of people
with mental illness are not violent and far more likely to be
victims of violent crime than perpetrators of violence," the
American Psychiatric Association said in a statement this week.
"Rhetoric that argues otherwise will further stigmatize and
interfere with people accessing needed treatment. Individuals can
also be emboldened to act violently by the public discourse and
divisive rhetoric.""

Sane, rational people don't pick up a weapon and kill multiple,
random people.* They are mentally ill.* The APA is clueless.* It
sounds like they just want to protect their income stream.

I have been saying this is the position of mental health professionals
for years. They think that as soon as you identify people as having a
mental issue they will become stigmatized so people will be reluctant
to seek help.
It is similar to how they talked about AIDS.
That explains why doctors want to use blanket gun regulation instead
of just trying to identify the dangerous people.




Stigma is a huge issue preventing the mentally ill from seeking help.
There are other issues, of course, such as availability of treatment,
availability of transportation, funding, et cetera, but stigma is a
biggie.

Comments about mental health professionals "protecting the income
stream" are just ignorant, right-wing nonsense.



Although I agree with the concept of background checks for all gun
purchases and/or permits, a background check is only as good as the
information it contains.

The HIPAA privacy laws should be re-visited and re-written to allow
mental health professionals to alert law enforcement officials of
potentially dangerous and mentally unstable people.* This should
be included in the background check data.

Mike DeWine, (R) of Ohio has introduced an idea that is similar in
concept to the "Section 38" statute in Massachusetts that allows family
members, police and, in some cases, health care officials to
petition a court to have a drug addict or alcoholic remanded to
the care and custody of the state for treatment.* Because it is
court ordered, this information can be included in background
checks.


Any number of states have laws that allow a licensed mental health
professional to issue an order to have an individual hospitalized for a
limited number of days for a complete mental health workup and, at the
end of that period, there may be a formal court hearing on whether the
confinement and treatment should be continued. There are barriers to the
treatment, though, because in many states and locales within those
states, there is a severe shortage of facilities and beds. In many
cases, especially for substance abusers, the course of confined
treatment lasts only long enough for the patient to get sober. Hey, this
is America, right?


The flaw in these "Baker Act" cases is that the workup is far from
complete. I am sure your wife would agree 72 hours is not long enough
for any meaningful evaluation, especially when the patient is a person
with a fairly well hidden mental disorder who can straighten up,
answer all of the questions correctly and be sent on their way,
usually long before the 72 hours is up.
Virtually every one of these shooters was capable of acting very
normal most of the time and it was only people who were around them a
lot who noted that they went off now and then.
The problem with the facilities is this manic depressive or
schizophrenic will be piled into a system clogged with drug addicts
and drunks. In that atmosphere, Jeffery Dahlmer could look very sane.


The justice system is reluctant to lock anyone up on a mental charge
absent horrific acts. My wife has "Baker-acted" a few folks (not sure
what they call it up here). One was a seriously bipolar woman who when
manic paraded around the streets of Northern Virginia at night stark
naked. She was ok when she took her meds, but she stopped. After three
days, she agreed to come in for a monthly injection instead of pills and
her behavior normalized. The judge was reluctant to hospitalize her,
even though she was a serious danger to herself.
  #15   Report Post  
Old August 13th 19, 12:25 AM posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,565
Default No mental illness here!

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 15:52:00 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 14:35:13 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 13:45:29 -0400 (EDT), Justan Ohlphart wrote:

John H. Wrote in message:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 07:22:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:On 8/11/2019 1:04 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 8/11/19 12:39 PM,
wrote: On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 05:44:16 -0700 (PDT), Its Me wrote: An article from NBC News says: "Experts, however, have said there's no evidence that people with mental illness are at a higher risk for committing gun violence. "It is important to note that the overwhelming majority of people with mental illness are not violent and far more likely to be victims of violent crime than perpetrators of violence," the American Psychiatric Association said in a statement this week. "Rhetoric that argues otherwise will further stigmatize and interfere with people accessing needed treatment. Individuals can also be emboldened to act violently by the public discourse and divisive rhetoric."" Sane, rational people don't pick up a weapon and
kill multiple, random people. They are mentally ill. The APA is clueless. It sounds like they just want to protect their income stream. I have been saying this is the position of mental health professionals for years. They think that as soon as you identify people as having a mental issue they will become stigmatized so people will be reluctant to seek help. It is similar to how they talked about AIDS. That explains why doctors want to use blanket gun regulation instead of just trying to identify the dangerous people. Stigma is a huge issue preventing the mentally ill from seeking help. There are other issues, of course, such as availability of treatment, availability of transportation, funding, et cetera, but stigma is a biggie. Comments about mental health professionals "protecting the income stream" are just ignorant, right-wing nonsense. Although I agree with the concept of background checks for all gun
purchases and/or permits, a background check is only as good as theinformation it contains.The HIPAA privacy laws should be re-visited and re-written to allowmental health professionals to alert law enforcement officials ofpotentially dangerous and mentally unstable people. This shouldbe included in the background check data.Mike DeWine, (R) of Ohio has introduced an idea that is similar inconcept to the "Section 38" statute in Massachusetts that allows familymembers, police and, in some cases, health care officials topetition a court to have a drug addict or alcoholic remanded tothe care and custody of the state for treatment. Because it iscourt ordered, this information can be included in backgroundchecks.---This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.comIf Bubba has his girlfriend buy him a gun, more stringent background checks are meaningless - exceptfor law-abiding citizens.

Aren't there criminal laws that deal with straw man purchases?


Criminals don't give a **** about laws. Girl friend buys the gun, gives it to boyfriend, calls cops
and reports it stolen.

Easy peasy!


That sounds like a lot of work in a country where there are tens of
millions of totally untraceable (once stolen) guns floating around. It
is hard to find statistics but guns are one of the most traded things
in the subculture of stolen property, just based on the number we hear
about that are taken from homes and cars, including cop cars.
If the cops actually did trace guns used in street crimes, having your
girlfriend buy it is not going to trick anyone but they don't usually
go to that much effort, if they find the gun at all.


Might be a 'lot of work', but it's one of the major ways the boys in Chicago get their guns. I've
bought several guns, and didn't think there was much 'work' involved at all.


  #17   Report Post  
Old August 13th 19, 01:01 AM posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2007
Posts: 33,539
Default No mental illness here!

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 19:25:29 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 15:52:00 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 14:35:13 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 13:45:29 -0400 (EDT), Justan Ohlphart wrote:

John H. Wrote in message:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 07:22:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:On 8/11/2019 1:04 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 8/11/19 12:39 PM,
wrote: On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 05:44:16 -0700 (PDT), Its Me wrote: An article from NBC News says: "Experts, however, have said there's no evidence that people with mental illness are at a higher risk for committing gun violence. "It is important to note that the overwhelming majority of people with mental illness are not violent and far more likely to be victims of violent crime than perpetrators of violence," the American Psychiatric Association said in a statement this week. "Rhetoric that argues otherwise will further stigmatize and interfere with people accessing needed treatment. Individuals can also be emboldened to act violently by the public discourse and divisive rhetoric."" Sane, rational people don't pick up a weapon and
kill multiple, random people. They are mentally ill. The APA is clueless. It sounds like they just want to protect their income stream. I have been saying this is the position of mental health professionals for years. They think that as soon as you identify people as having a mental issue they will become stigmatized so people will be reluctant to seek help. It is similar to how they talked about AIDS. That explains why doctors want to use blanket gun regulation instead of just trying to identify the dangerous people. Stigma is a huge issue preventing the mentally ill from seeking help. There are other issues, of course, such as availability of treatment, availability of transportation, funding, et cetera, but stigma is a biggie. Comments about mental health professionals "protecting the income stream" are just ignorant, right-wing nonsense. Although I agree with the concept of background checks for all gun
purchases and/or permits, a background check is only as good as theinformation it contains.The HIPAA privacy laws should be re-visited and re-written to allowmental health professionals to alert law enforcement officials ofpotentially dangerous and mentally unstable people. This shouldbe included in the background check data.Mike DeWine, (R) of Ohio has introduced an idea that is similar inconcept to the "Section 38" statute in Massachusetts that allows familymembers, police and, in some cases, health care officials topetition a court to have a drug addict or alcoholic remanded tothe care and custody of the state for treatment. Because it iscourt ordered, this information can be included in backgroundchecks.---This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.comIf Bubba has his girlfriend buy him a gun, more stringent background checks are meaningless - exceptfor law-abiding citizens.

Aren't there criminal laws that deal with straw man purchases?

Criminals don't give a **** about laws. Girl friend buys the gun, gives it to boyfriend, calls cops
and reports it stolen.

Easy peasy!


That sounds like a lot of work in a country where there are tens of
millions of totally untraceable (once stolen) guns floating around. It
is hard to find statistics but guns are one of the most traded things
in the subculture of stolen property, just based on the number we hear
about that are taken from homes and cars, including cop cars.
If the cops actually did trace guns used in street crimes, having your
girlfriend buy it is not going to trick anyone but they don't usually
go to that much effort, if they find the gun at all.


Might be a 'lot of work', but it's one of the major ways the boys in Chicago get their guns. I've
bought several guns, and didn't think there was much 'work' involved at all.


You still have that paper trail problem. If anyone you know buys the
gun, it gets it very close to you when they trace it. The cops are
usually smart enough to put that together if their intelligence unit
(snitches) is any good.
If Kiesha is Jamal's girlfriend and if she bought the gun Jamal is
suspected of using in a murder they will sweat her until she breaks or
Jamal has her killed. They already have probable cause on a federal
gun trafficking charge.
Usually in Chicago, we are talking about handguns so it is illegal for
Kiesha to go to Gary IN and buy it anyway. (the alleged supply chain
of Chicago handguns). If she is a Gary resident it is still a federal
crime to transfer it across state lines.
  #18   Report Post  
Old August 13th 19, 01:21 AM posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jan 2017
Posts: 3,030
Default No mental illness here!

John H. wrote:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 15:52:00 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 14:35:13 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 13:45:29 -0400 (EDT), Justan Ohlphart wrote:

John H. Wrote in message:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 07:22:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:On 8/11/2019 1:04 PM, Keyser Soze
wrote: On 8/11/19 12:39 PM,
wrote: On Sun, 11
Aug 2019 05:44:16 -0700 (PDT), Its Me
wrote: An article from NBC News says: "Experts,
however, have said there's no evidence that people with mental
illness are at a higher risk for committing gun violence. "It
is important to note that the overwhelming majority of people
with mental illness are not violent and far more likely to be victims
of violent crime than perpetrators of violence," the American
Psychiatric Association said in a statement this week. "Rhetoric that
argues otherwise will further stigmatize and interfere with people
accessing needed treatment. Individuals can also be emboldened to act
violently by the public discourse and divisive rhetoric."" Sane,
rational people don't pick up a weapon and
kill multiple, random people. They are mentally ill. The APA is
clueless. It sounds like they just want to protect their income
stream. I have been saying this is the position of mental health
professionals for years. They think that as soon as you identify
people as having a mental issue they will become stigmatized so
people will be reluctant to seek help. It is similar to how they
talked about AIDS. That explains why doctors want to use blanket
gun regulation instead of just trying to identify the dangerous
people. Stigma is a huge issue preventing the mentally ill
from seeking help. There are other issues, of course, such as
availability of treatment, availability of transportation, funding,
et cetera, but stigma is a biggie. Comments about mental health
professionals "protecting the income stream" are just ignorant,
right-wing nonsense. Although I agree with the concept of
background checks for all gun
purchases and/or permits, a background check is only as good as
theinformation it contains.The HIPAA privacy laws should be
re-visited and re-written to allowmental health professionals to
alert law enforcement officials ofpotentially dangerous and mentally
unstable people. This shouldbe included in the background check
data.Mike DeWine, (R) of Ohio has introduced an idea that is
similar inconcept to the "Section 38" statute in Massachusetts that allows
familymembers, police and, in some cases, health care officials
topetition a court to have a drug addict or alcoholic remanded
tothe care and custody of the state for treatment. Because it
iscourt ordered, this information can be included in
backgroundchecks.---This email has been checked for viruses by
AVG.
https://www.avg.comIf Bubba has his girlfriend buy him a gun,
more stringent background checks are meaningless - exceptfor law-abiding citizens.

Aren't there criminal laws that deal with straw man purchases?

Criminals don't give a **** about laws. Girl friend buys the gun, gives
it to boyfriend, calls cops
and reports it stolen.

Easy peasy!


That sounds like a lot of work in a country where there are tens of
millions of totally untraceable (once stolen) guns floating around. It
is hard to find statistics but guns are one of the most traded things
in the subculture of stolen property, just based on the number we hear
about that are taken from homes and cars, including cop cars.
If the cops actually did trace guns used in street crimes, having your
girlfriend buy it is not going to trick anyone but they don't usually
go to that much effort, if they find the gun at all.


Might be a 'lot of work', but it's one of the major ways the boys in
Chicago get their guns. I've
bought several guns, and didn't think there was much 'work' involved at all.


I bought my pistols so long ago, you just paid the guy and took the gun. I
remember the advert for my 357 was on the trap club bulletin board.

  #20   Report Post  
Old August 13th 19, 04:20 AM posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2007
Posts: 33,539
Default No mental illness here!

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 00:21:40 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 15:52:00 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 14:35:13 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 13:45:29 -0400 (EDT), Justan Ohlphart wrote:

John H. Wrote in message:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 07:22:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:On 8/11/2019 1:04 PM, Keyser Soze
wrote: On 8/11/19 12:39 PM,
wrote: On Sun, 11
Aug 2019 05:44:16 -0700 (PDT), Its Me
wrote: An article from NBC News says: "Experts,
however, have said there's no evidence that people with mental
illness are at a higher risk for committing gun violence. "It
is important to note that the overwhelming majority of people
with mental illness are not violent and far more likely to be victims
of violent crime than perpetrators of violence," the American
Psychiatric Association said in a statement this week. "Rhetoric that
argues otherwise will further stigmatize and interfere with people
accessing needed treatment. Individuals can also be emboldened to act
violently by the public discourse and divisive rhetoric."" Sane,
rational people don't pick up a weapon and
kill multiple, random people. They are mentally ill. The APA is
clueless. It sounds like they just want to protect their income
stream. I have been saying this is the position of mental health
professionals for years. They think that as soon as you identify
people as having a mental issue they will become stigmatized so
people will be reluctant to seek help. It is similar to how they
talked about AIDS. That explains why doctors want to use blanket
gun regulation instead of just trying to identify the dangerous
people. Stigma is a huge issue preventing the mentally ill
from seeking help. There are other issues, of course, such as
availability of treatment, availability of transportation, funding,
et cetera, but stigma is a biggie. Comments about mental health
professionals "protecting the income stream" are just ignorant,
right-wing nonsense. Although I agree with the concept of
background checks for all gun
purchases and/or permits, a background check is only as good as
theinformation it contains.The HIPAA privacy laws should be
re-visited and re-written to allowmental health professionals to
alert law enforcement officials ofpotentially dangerous and mentally
unstable people. This shouldbe included in the background check
data.Mike DeWine, (R) of Ohio has introduced an idea that is
similar inconcept to the "Section 38" statute in Massachusetts that allows
familymembers, police and, in some cases, health care officials
topetition a court to have a drug addict or alcoholic remanded
tothe care and custody of the state for treatment. Because it
iscourt ordered, this information can be included in
backgroundchecks.---This email has been checked for viruses by
AVG.
https://www.avg.comIf Bubba has his girlfriend buy him a gun,
more stringent background checks are meaningless - exceptfor law-abiding citizens.

Aren't there criminal laws that deal with straw man purchases?

Criminals don't give a **** about laws. Girl friend buys the gun, gives
it to boyfriend, calls cops
and reports it stolen.

Easy peasy!

That sounds like a lot of work in a country where there are tens of
millions of totally untraceable (once stolen) guns floating around. It
is hard to find statistics but guns are one of the most traded things
in the subculture of stolen property, just based on the number we hear
about that are taken from homes and cars, including cop cars.
If the cops actually did trace guns used in street crimes, having your
girlfriend buy it is not going to trick anyone but they don't usually
go to that much effort, if they find the gun at all.


Might be a 'lot of work', but it's one of the major ways the boys in
Chicago get their guns. I've
bought several guns, and didn't think there was much 'work' involved at all.


I bought my pistols so long ago, you just paid the guy and took the gun. I
remember the advert for my 357 was on the trap club bulletin board.


When I was in the Skeet League, the Winchester ranges were virtual gun
stores with ads for all sorts of guns ammo and components. That was
where I found out about buying shotgun shells by the pallet. Guys
would put a note up like those used car ads with a phone number you
rip off and when he had enough buyers he would go get a pallet of
them. We had enough shooters in the IBM league that I could just go
get a pallet and they would be gone in a week.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CNN on Shooter Mental Health John H.[_5_] General 27 October 8th 15 09:18 PM
Higher rate of mental illness among army enlistees... F.O.A.D. General 8 March 4th 14 03:53 PM
Global Warming Causes Psychiatric Illness! Mike[_9_] ASA 0 July 9th 08 07:14 PM
Diving and mental disorders Bob Crantz ASA 0 February 11th 07 02:41 AM
Rob's Mental problems Joe ASA 0 June 4th 06 02:39 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 BoatBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Boats"

 

Copyright © 2017