Ft. Hood and Mental Health

[opticman]

I seem to remember listening to the live feed from the hearings when our "friends" in Annapolis were voting on SB 281. They had to vote on an amendment that would have somehow improved the reporting of those individuals with known mental health issues to prevent unstable individuals obtaining firearms. This was voted down.

Reports now are that the recent Ft. Hood shooter had mental health issues.

I would think holding those politicians accountable, who voted against this amendment, would be a good issue to hammer home coming into the next election.

Thoughts?

 

[HarCo2ANewb]

No.

We don't need another reason for people to not seek help and nothing from Annapolis is going to be good.

 

[lx1x]

Welcome to Merryland comrad. More vodka for you.

Yes.. they voted it down and don't want to share data with others.
Its for the children! Lol

 

[Mr H]

That discussion has already begun here:

http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=149380

But, you do bring up an interesting angle for Maryland. We need to hold ALL of them to account. If you haven't already seen it, there is an Elections thread in this folder.

http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=147366

 

[GrimReaper]

Bad idea, give them a inch and they will take a mile.

If it happens, it wont be long before its required that you get a doctors note before purchasing a firearm.

Good luck finding a doctor to sign off on that!

 

[aireyc]

Maybe, but I oppose mental health restrictions. Well, I oppose ALL firearms laws, but if I were going to run with the premise that background checks are a good thing, I would still oppose mental health checks simply because it's very subjective, and you're effectively relinquishing your rights based on arbitrary criteria. The general thinking goes if you're too dangerous to have access to a gun, you're probably too dangerous to be walking the streets, and you should be locked up.

The only thing I think you can go off as far as accountability is to point out any hypocrisy in their reasoning. If they run on supporting mental health checks, but voted against it in the past, then call them out on that. But I wouldn't go beyond that. There's too much other BS that you can use against the antis.

 

[mike_in_md]

If a person is deemed to be a threat to others they shouldn't be on the street. Perhaps the real question should be "should people who need medications to not be a threat to others be required to prove that they are taking their medication?" I think that people who are not taking their medication that would be dangerous to others need to be off the street. Confiscate the person and lock him up until the problem is resolved and then he has no access to anything dangerous. We need better mental illness control, not gun control.

 

[Biggfoot44]

We might be think about improved reporting of existing data. What They'll be thinking is making a lifetime ban over any diagnosis of PTSD, and any possable means to deny as many Vetrans as possable.

 

[TTMD]

The Hood shooter is said to have been suffering from depression, not PTSD. He also had reportedly never been deployed.

 

[Biggfoot44]

I never said it was true , just that the Anti's will go in that direction.

 

[Tomcat]

The Hood shooter is said to have been suffering from depression, not PTSD. He also had reportedly never been deployed.

Read he was a truck driver in Iraq for the last 4 months we were over there and never saw any combat. He was using the depression to try to get a medical retirement

 

[Tony P]

Make depression or being prescribed ambien a disqualified and 70% of the population will lose thier guns.

Depression is not a serious mental disorder.

 

[Inigoes]

Depression is not a serious mental disorder.

True

Some drugs being prescribed to treat it, can create a disorder.

 

[NavyATFP]

Read he was a truck driver in Iraq for the last 4 months we were over there and never saw any combat. He was using the depression to try to get a medical retirement

He also served quite a few years in the PR National Guard where he deployed with "Peace Keeping" forces to Sinai Peninsula when he was still infantry.

Just for clarification not every knuckle dragger decides that they should chase medical retirement over depression and to make an assumption that he was "using depression to try to get a medical retirement" isnt all that fair unless you were treating him or in his COC. Even truck drivers in Iraq saw a lot of bad things whether bullets were flying at them or not, if you didnt walk a mile in this man shoes try to hold comments about what he saw.

This is a bad situation that will keep happening because for to long the zero defect mentality has been allowed to claim the military and as such the security posture of our bases has steadily declined. When they use exercises as training instead of being a measuring stick on how ready the Security Personnel(and the rest of each base is), when they continue to allow the Senior Leadership on a post decide when something becomes inconvenient it is something they can dismiss and since the early 90's as they steadily cut back on armed watch around bases to just the Military Police/Security Personnel(to include having to fight with tenant units to support with back up personnel to be trained as auxiliary) all this leads to things like this repeatedly happening on a military base.

As for the issue of mental health reporting and gun ownership(especially in the military community), you may find this can cause a severe backlash by keeping veterans and active duty personnel from ever going anywhere near a mental health professional when they need actual help. Slowly the actual mental health issues will boil over and this type of issue could become even more common place.


Just my 2 centavos.

 

[TxAggie]

Read he was a truck driver in Iraq for the last 4 months we were over there and never saw any combat. He was using the depression to try to get a medical retirement

That's a bit of a stretch, isn't it. Who's reporting the retirement issue?

 

[teratos]

If we can keep firearms out of the hands of those with criminal history and those with mental health issues, then we have won half the battle.

Criminal history, yes. Mental health issues.......maybe.

Those with mental illness are at no higher risk for violence than the general population. It's true. The only exception is when there is mental illness and substance abuse. In that situation, the risk of violence is quite high. People with mental illness are at a much higher risk of being the victims of violence. They deserve to be able to defend themselves. With a few exceptions (severe schizophrenia, particular bipolar patients), we need to defend the 2A Rights of those with mental illness, as they are among the most vulnerable citizens out there.

The other problem with making mental illness a disqualifier, is that just about all of us can be diagnosed with a mental disorder. Where do you draw the line, and who defines who is too ill to be able to defend themselves?

 

[webb297]

A political comittee should be formed to discuss possible mental health issues which would prohibit someone from possessing a firearm. If a pyschological exam is required to rule out mental issues it would be a step in the right direction.

You want our politicians to decide on medical health issues? There is no way any psychologist (or any other type of doctor) will sign a paper "ruling out mental issues", it would be WAY to big a liability.

If somebody is able to trick a doc (or if a previously sane person cracks for some reason), and then go out and do something terrible, the family of the victims will sue the doc.

 

[teratos]

A political comittee should be formed to discuss possible mental health issues which would prohibit someone from possessing a firearm. If a pyschological exam is required to rule out mental issues it would be a step in the right direction.

No. There is no way to effectively screen the population at large.

There was a political committee formed here in MD. The HB618 task force was charged with looking at the access of those with mental illness to regulated firearms. There were representatives from various organizations from around MD. MSP, mental health advocates, sheriffs association, AGC, MSI (me). The conclusion? More study is needed. The Bloomberg School of Public Heath folks, States Attorney and other lackeys for O'Malley thought it was a great idea to further restrict the 2A. Those of is who looked at the facts saw no benefit.

 

[teratos]

Which is why politicians should be the ones who should have the responsibilty of ruling out mental issues.

You are drunk, aren't you? Either that or you are Piers Morgan.

Politicians are the last people who should rule on mental health and who should own guns. The 2A says everyone has the Right, except for a very narrowly defined group. Don't like it? Move to England.

 

[webb297]

Which is why politicians should be the ones who should have the responsibilty of ruling out mental issues.

Do you trust a politician? Any of them? The IRS is being completely political wen it come to 501c3 charity organizations, how much worse would it be if they could take away one of your constitutional rights?