News The Latest Gun Control Speech (usa)

[scout86]

With this being an international mental health forum, I hope for diverse insights!

I happened to be home and heard President Obama's speech this morning. Disclaimer. I own a couple guns and don't plan to give them up. I've also had a couple close friends use guns to commit suicide.....

One of the things that was mentioned, but kind of glossed over, in the speech, was that the President is hoping to improve the mental health side of the equation. The commentators all thought that was "something everyone would agree on". It was briefly mentioned that it should be easier for mental health providers to report individuals they were concerned about to "the government". That's about all that was said. Didn't clarify what PART of the government, or what would be reported, or under what circumstances, or even what, exactly, is a "mental illness", much less how the information would be used.

My first thought was along the lines of "that won't affect me". Except maybe it will. And there are plenty of people who have trouble seeking help to begin with, this would be a deal breaker for some of them. And, I suppose, PTSD counts as a "mental illness", even if I think I'm fine. Or at least perfectly capable of making my own decisions.

This bothers me. Maybe I'm paranoid. On the other hand "FUBAR" is a term that was invented to DESCRIBE our government!

Thoughts?

 

[shimmerz]

Canada had a gun registry that became an absolute flop. Let's face it, people who are criminals don't register guns. So much money was wasted on the registry.

Personally, I think society as a whole is mentally ill.... and mentally ill changes from one DSM version to another so WTF?

Personally I think that this gun thing has a political agenda. But that is just me. Yep, I know, 'conspiracy theorist'. Whatever.

 

[Kodah]

I had to shut it off. When the lips move, the more I disbelieve.

We don't need more gun control. Not enforcing current gun control isn't the answer to more gun control. By the way, cars kill more people than guns per year.

I guess it could be said, they should require everyone to register and pay a tax on every gun owned like cars.

Next year, include knives as they kill people too with registration and tax.

The following year, add kitchen knives. Then to go on any weapons to include axes, canes, walking sticks, etc.

This will go on to where if you even raise a fist, it will be a felony and you'll see prison time.

Personally, I like Joe biden saying to just discharge both barrels of your double barrel shotgun to persuade criminals. I'm sure they will run, or just rob the house since the gun is now unloaded.

 

[queen]

As someone in the field of behavioral health, I can tell you that we have so many regulations around confidentiality and disclosures it's not funny. We are mandatory reporters for things like suspected/known child abuse/neglect or elder abuse/neglect. In terms of other types of disclosures, we have to have, in our "clinical" opinion, knowledge that a client is an imminent danger to themselves or others in order to make any sort of disclosure. "Imminent" is loosely defined and in the past, professionals have been successfully prosecuted for making disclosures that in their minds were "imminent" that others did not. So it's a very very fine line to walk, especially knowing that you could lose your professional license, and be fined or jailed, for what can be deemed later as an illegal disclosure. From a clinical perspective, it's a judgment call and one that is incredibly difficult and gut-wrenching to make. Regarding who in the "government" things are reported to, in most cases, that means calls are made to the local police department or county sheriff's office.

Moral of the story: it would be helpful if there were more safeguards in place to protect professionals when/if making disclosures in cases of probable/plausible harm to others. However, would any increased safeguards for professionals be seen as infringing on the rights of clients seeking help, and therefore be a deterrent to them from getting help? It's a very complex issue.

 

[Ed Norton]

We have plenty of psychopaths or people with PTSD who carry guns...they also wear badges if they decide to wear them that day.

 

[Mel (Hippo256)]

I don't really follow these kind of things, but do I understand correctly that the new idea is that people get checked before they can get a gun? Checked if they don't have mental issues, so they "aren't a danger for themselves or someone else"?

 

[KwanYingirl]

I'm all for his plan. Get over yourselves. We can do background checks and drug tests to get a job, a background check before buying a gun is a no brainier.

 

[scout86]

a background check before buying a gun is a no brainier.

Personally, I have no problem with the background check as it exists right now. Far as I know, I'd pass it, right now.

The part of this I was wondering about, and really don't know about, because no details were given, is this "enhanced mental health" part. If they really aren't going to change the reporting procedures that exist right now, that's probably ok. As it was referenced in the speech, it sounded like they might be requiring people in the mental health field to report people they don't think should have guns. THAT, I would have a problem with. And I can see it as a problem for the potential reporters as well. Beyond the gun part of it, what happens to the information? Who has access to it and how can it be used. After all these are the very same people who have been unable to figure out a way to bill me for my insurance for the past 12 months. (Long story, but I'm not kidding. My file shows I'm in the system and that no bills have been generated, but they don't know why and don't know how to generate them. WTH?) I don't want "the system" to have that much information about me because they don't seem to know what they're doing at ALL.

There have definitely been shootings committed by people who shouldn't have had access to guns. I won't disagree with that. I'm just not at all sure that what he's talking about is an actual solution to the problem.

 

[shimmerz]

Beyond the gun part of it, what happens to the information?

Assume everyone does.

 

[KwanYingirl]

Yes, I see your point. It's already depressing to know I'll never get life insurance because I have major depressive disorder. This is not due to the government, it is due to insurance companies having a clearinghouse for diagnoses. My daughter had to have a mental health clearance to work in a daycare. She passed, but one of her friends didn't and I'm not surprised. I knew her well and kids would not be emotionally safe with her. Her peers could hardly deal with her. There are many management jobs that require a psychological screening. Again, nothing to do with the government. The Americans with Disabilities Act protects us from being discriminated against. Also, President Obama is putting a boatload of money into the mental health system to help reduce the number of gun related suicides. 3 out of 4 gun deaths are suicides. He's also going to help the private sector invent better safety devices for guns to protect children from shooting themselves.

I've had an office for 13 years in a building that was 99% filled by Kidspeace, a national non-profit that advocates for abused children. Every year, they lost more and more funding and are now just using one tiny office for data entry for their reports and are doing house visits. I ask them how safe are the children and they say it's a tragedy.

My doctors NEVER put anything in my chart concerning my past history of alcohol abuse. I've been sober for 23 years and still don't admit to it on health forms. You know, cuz drunks aren't good for anything...

 

[KwanYingirl]

I volunteered for the Wxecutive Director of the rape and assault agency in NH. I went to meetings she had with other social agencies where they joined forces to help victims, homelessness, education, etc. for seven years they had been trying to pass a bill in the state legislature requiring the surrender of firearms for a two week cool off period when someone had a restraining order put on them. Data clearly confirmed that women and their children were most likely murdered in the first two weeks of getting a restraining order on their abuser.

The hearings on the bill were pathetic. NH is super conservative and colossally ignorant. The members of congress didn't give one flying f*ck about the victims, ain't no one gonna take ours guns away god damn it. It finally passed after year ten and the homicide rate went to zero.

 

[scout86]

trying to pass a bill in the state legislature requiring the surrender of firearms for a two week cool off period whe

That is exactly the kind of situation where it DOES make sense to do something like that. If possible. Because if somebody really wants a weapon......

Also, President Obama is putting a boatload of money into the mental health system to help reduce the number of gun related suicides.

I hope they really do fund mental health and related programs better. I kind of don't care WHAT the method of suicide is, I hope they do things that encourage people to seek help and make it possible to actually FIND real help.

One of my friends, who shot himself, was very conservative and we had a few "they're coming after my guns!" conversations. I told him there were NOT coming after his guns. I was in therapy in a liberal state & no one was trying to take MY guns. He lived in TX, I figured his guns were safe. But, if "they" ever DID come for his guns, I promised I'd be right there with him, at the barricade. No way would he have sought out therapy if he'd thought it would "cost him his guns". I kind of wish someone had actually taken his guns. But, more than that, I wish the idiot at the VA who told him "there's nothing wrong with you you just have a bad attitude!" had never crossed his path. You know, I'm not so sure I would have started therapy either, if I'd thought that information would end up in some government data base.