Years ago I warned that the next issue for gun rights was the introduction of the mental health argument.  Now this has found a mainstream acceptance with gun rights supporters and anti-gunners spouting off mental health problems whenever a mass shooting makes the headlines. Six years ago few people made the connection, now many have heard about the issue.  

 

However things have changed.  It has been said often enough that, it appears to me, the anti's have decided that if they agree with the NRA and Pro-gunners, that there is a mental illness relationship, that they must find fault to make it clear they do NOT agree. In my circles, I am seeing more and more anti's posting stories titled "it's Not About Mental Illness".

 

As it turns out, there has been much more research on this since it has made it's way into the national consciousness.  I am linking to this article because the man interviewed is one of the few doing the research, not a commentator.  Some of what he says is going to piss you off, most of it you will find very interesting.

 

I am not going to say this is something I can agree with or disagree with.  I am going to say that it outlines the next push from anti-gun people and you will do well by being familiar with these latest findings. This is no flash in the pan report, this is the next thing coming. One can fully expect that anti-gunners will cherry pick from findings such as these, so it is up to you to know all of the findings and not a few pieces.

 

A few key points that I take away from the article:

 

• When we talk about a mass shooting and mental illness, we are talking about "a-mass-shooting-and-mental-illness."  We are NOT talking about suicide or violent crime.  So yes, the national consciousness is raised when a mass shooting occurs, but ideas about how to stop that - we need realize that it won't stop those bent on suicide or violent people. It is a completely separate discussion. 
• Researchers are pointing out that a history of violent misdemeanors and substance abuse is more in line with the kind of violence that takes more lives per year than mass shootings.
• Most suicides are "the impulsive action of a young person who's intoxicated"
• Blocking a person from obtaining a gun because of a past institutionalization works, but isn't going reduce deaths by guns much because, see point number one.

 

http://www.propublica.org/article/myth-vs-fact-violence-and-mental-health#update

Came across this in a group I belong to in regards to "Reactive Attachment Disorder", a pattern of behavior found in adopted children.  I belong to the group because of experience with my adopted sister.  Heartbreaking stuff.  This is a quote I lifted from the group so to keep the poster anonymous.

 

I post it here because I don't want to open another thread about mental illness, but I would like to point out the very real issue of how hard it is to get the proper mental health care in this country. and I wish more gun owners could see the awfulness of it and how it relates to current affairs. 

 

"My rad [Reactive Attachment Dissorder...bulpup] may die today. He got even yesterday by eating. Glucose is so high he went into dka [Diabetic Ketoacidosis...bp] and is now insulin resistance. Sent him to school because the emt for the hospital works at school. Safer there than here. I can't afford multiple 5 day trips five hours from home to treat the dka but no one will admit him for the psych issue which is the cause of the dka. Taking him to the local er means I stabilize the dka in an er setting unless he needs the big hospital. Still not treating the rad issue or preventing the damage. The mental health crisis line knows me. His therapist office knows me by voice. His insurance knows me. Cps [Child Protective Services] is so lost at this point they freaking avoid me. I'm at a loss. He's killing himself and no one will do anything. They won't stop him from putting himself in harms way because he's using his medical condition. If he slit his wrists they would commit him to prevent that because after the fact is too late and yet once he's in dka it's to late but they wait for him to do it and treat. I have calls into everybody again but in all honesty nothing will happen. My rad may die. If not today then at some point he will push to far just like slitting his wrists or popping pills."

My personal opinion: this is all smoke screen to poke holes in privacy laws, HIPPA, build more databases and justify further criminalization of otherwise law abiding populous. 

And what better boogyman than "Guns" to scare anti-2A population into signing off on giving up more privacy too ?  Its really two birds with one stone. 

 

Wonder how anti crowd feels when the same databases are used against them in 50 years (or less). 

  Seems a relevant place to re-post something I just saw on  Rimfirecentral.com regarding HIPAA issues:  

 

Back Door Mental Health Vetting

 

 

Log in to see fewer ads

As it's 2016, and we have recently (this week) been hearing a lot about the "Increased mental health checks" vetting.

I'm the HIPAA coordinator for a hospital. 

Despite what folks think, medical records are not private. Folks think, "It's my medical record." Wrong! In fact, the law specifically states the record is the property of the facility /doctor. This is a very important distinction.

The so-called privacy rule is a joke. Like a colender, there are 1000 authorized (and planned) holes in it. Every agency out there has an exemption. This is known as a "Covered Entity". Your Doctor has no choice. A "Covered Entity" does not need your permission or knowledge to get your medical information. 

When they announced the HIPPA Privacy law, everyone got a "Warm & Fuzzy" that their private medical information was, indeed private. Someone just forgot to mention the numerous exemptions already written into the law, and that there is a provision in the law which allows an entity to apply for "Covered Entity" status @ a later date. 

They already have full and unfettered access to your medical information / medical records. They can either access them electronically,(unless your hospital is not a stand-alone system), remember the electronic record deal of several years ago? For the stand-alone facility, a simple demand to produce the record, which will be faxed, emailed or hand delivered. If the doctor or facility questions "why?", a copy of the law granting "Covered Status" will be used as an answer.

NEVER, EVER say you are depressed, upset, angry or have feelings of wanting revenge against anyone person, or an entity. Never say you are suicidal or have homicidal feelings. 

At your doctors office, REFUSE to answer any so-called "statistical" surveys: Questions about gun ownership, sexual trama, religion, family members, domestic problems, your deep seated feelings, kids, debts, etc.


This information is only collected to be used against you at a later date. It amounts to your written & signed confession. The doctor cannot refuse to render services because you won't provide answers to a "harmless" survey. You can even refuse certain medical tests.

The VA is one of the worst in this mental health Data collection scheme. Call for an appointment and they tell you 2X in the recording about how to call a special number if you're depressed, etc. 

You Are: ALWAYS HAPPY, AND CONTENT WITH YOUR LIFE, FAMILY, JOB ETC. 

Even if your loved one dies, you are "Naturally in mourning, but accept death is part of the natural cycle." You are not angry at a higher power or the deceased ones doctor, etc. 

Don't ever reveal information not specifically germane to your medical condition. A problem with acid reflux does not require you to disclose firearm ownership information or your current "feelings."

__________________
Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth. Sherlock Holmes

I understand what you guys are saying but it is not exactly relevant to the links posted. Access to mental health care is actually very hard to come by and in the stated case I would be hard pressed to see how it is a smokescreen.

 

On the other link, it states that it would be better to be concerned with those that have multiple violent misdemeanors than felonies.

 

A parent with a kid that is suicidal but can't get any help and a guy that beats his girlfriend regularly are not the same as being asked if you are depressed in a doctor's office.

 

If it makes you feel any better, the antis I know say the NRA is propagating the smokescreen of a mental health crisis in the USA.

Access to mental health is hard to come by, because of systemic abuse by those "experts" "who knew it all" and played Gods with People.  There is tons of material available on type of atrocities performed in the name of Psychiatric Therapy. 

 

The system in general proved time and again that it does more harm than help people and cannot be trusted at all. 

 

The more "solutions" we build to catalog, categorize and penalize people , the less they will seek any help at all. And THATS the recipe for disaster. 

 

@siderman article highlights exactly the problem we have. We build a system, promise people that they should "talk about feelings", record it, catalog it and use it against the very same people. 

 

In general, the article is good and Dr. Jeffrey is right about certain things. But some aspects of this thought process falls into same traps. 

 

And bottom line, this country is spending WAY too much time and resources on a topic thats irrelevant (in grand scheme of things) and wrong solutions. 

Not really. A lot of it has to do with managed health care and cost.

 

When my adopted sister had her break in the early eighties she was able to get placed in a treatment facility for a year with my parents' insurance and it helped her considerably.

 

Currently, my sister-in-law is having the exact same problems with her adopted child and not only did it take having the child try to push them down the stairs twice before anyone would take the child for treatment (after knowing for 5 years she needed it) but the child can stay where she is for 4 months before the insurance runs out and they will likely have to sell the house.

 

Abuses you discuss are certainly true, but we find ourselves at a, frankly, embarrassing opposite situation.

I also have strong objections to where author is leading..

 

Should two DUI get someone onto the list ?

 

In a true 2A sense, every free Citizen has inherent right to bear arms. Either a person walks free and exercises those rights freely or they should be ward of the State. Anything else is a class system that will lead nowhere but to the legalized slavery.

 

Should two DUI get someone onto the list ?

 

 

 

I don't even think you should be able to drive a car after your second DUI... Why should anyone trust your judgement after endangering others twice.

I think it makes more sense to report two DWIs to NICS then it does to report some felonies, but that's a pretty complicated discussion.

 

The author of that piece is fairly even handed and I like how he prefers to talk about findings and try to balance them. I don't think he is pushing an agenda so much as trying to start talking. It's worth keeping on top of what this guy is saying, at the very least because this is the next push from those pushing for more laws.

 

 

Here's some food for discussion: it seems across the country everybody is OK with having child molesters registered with the towns they live in for the rest of their lives. Why is it OK to mark the child molester for the rest of their lives but not the person who gets two DWIs?

 

Why would one be a perfect indicator of a lifetime pattern versus the other? In other words if it's commonly accepted that some people might not change for one crime couldn't be true for some others?

 

 

 

I understand what you guys are saying but it is not exactly relevant to the links posted. Access to mental health care is actually very hard to come by and in the stated case I would be hard pressed to see how it is a smokescreen.On the other link, it states that it would be better to be concerned with those that have multiple violent misdemeanors than felonies.A parent with a kid that is suicidal but can't get any help and a guy that beats his girlfriend regularly are not the same as being asked if you are depressed in a doctor's office.If it makes you feel any better, the antis I know say the NRA is propagating the smokescreen of a mental health crisis in the USA.

Congress requires all medical records to be digital and maintained. Obamacare requires many of them to be shared with the federal government. All of them are required to be shared with your insurance companies, and maintained just like your doctor has to.

 

Tomorrow, you could have a Sheriff show up and search your house for guns over an appointment you had with a dermatologist 20 years ago. They have all your stuff, all of it is digital, they can change the rules any time they want. And they just did. And they will again. Whatever you believe the laws or regs are today does not matter tomorrow. You gave up all your rights when you started talking to your pediatrician decades ago.

 

There is a reason why Mental Health was the political concentration camp sentence of the Stazi, USSR, and Mao. And the US Progressive movement, which inspired the NAZIs. And there is a reason why the federal government has mandated digital records and retention. I had all my medical records, including military, hacked and stolen almost ten years ago. My military medical records were all paper. But they had to make them digital. For my convenience and to treat me better. When they were hacked, it took me two months to get them, and it took my doctor two months to get them. The only people that could get them in an instant was a hacker. So much for the "convenience" that "our customers are demanding."

I don't even think you should be able to drive a car after your second DUI... Why should anyone trust your judgement after endangering others twice.

Then lets get a law to lock them up or sentence them to death and be done with it. Once you accept and support  notion of distrust  (to the degree of denying 2A rights) of someone who committed <whatever>, you invariably support the class system, that HAS to lead to records keeping, lists, people getting on lists, having to run checks to "validate that trust factor".  And THATS how we ended up where we are. 

 

DUI (even second one) is YOUR pet issue, Drugs (even recreational) is MY pet issue, DV(even a disgruntled false accuse) is Joe's pet issue.  Politicians combine all these and give US what we deserve and not surprisingly it looks like the system we got in NJ.  We got what we deserve. 

......

 

Here's some food for discussion: it seems across the country everybody is OK with having child molesters registered with the towns they live in for the rest of their lives. Why is it OK to mark the child molester for the rest of their lives but not the person who gets two DWIs?

 

Why would one be a perfect indicator of a lifetime pattern versus the other? In other words if it's commonly accepted that some people might not change for one crime couldn't be true for some others?

a) You are making same assumption that Mr. Obama (purposely) makes.. i.e everyone out there supports xyz.  

b) That is very good example (in addition to the campaign against Tobacco) of how a relentless, dedicated and purposeful campaign is run to turn people around.  Just like a prospect of Security, Society readily accept anything with mere mention of Children. Mark my words, it will happen with 2A too. If not today, 100 years from now. 

 

I have read accounts of lives ruined because of that stupid "everybody supports" thing.  19yr old having to register because he dated a soon-to-be-legal-age girl and then married her. Yet, he walks around unjustly as Marked One.  

 

I would like ask a question. What type of society allows a REAL child rapist walk the streets ? 

 

We continue to criminalize every little thing we can find, common sense is driven out of Courts with mandatory sentences, mandatory registration, mandatory ...,.   We have been brain washed to the point that some of us want two DUI to be entered in NICS and 2A denied. God have mercy on us. 

 

PS:  I do not condone DWI nor do I underestimate the real potential for casualties. 

You miss the point when you say I make assumptions when I ask a question for discussion purposes. The point is to mention to this group where things are headed. The term "behavioral indicators" is the next thing coming down the road.

 

Both sides have embraced the "mental illness" discussion so closely that they have come around and said it is a smokescreen by the other side. You are aware that anti- gunner's are all out there saying the NRA wants to push the mental illness issue right? While some pro gun rights people want nothing to do with it, congress has bill after bill all the while it's is now the focus of an executive order.

 

So, like when I mentioned the mental illness aspect on this forum years ago and watched it rise right to the forefront of the national discussion, I say this: next is "behavioral indicators".

 

Be ready.

 

Btw you you a good point about why are child molesters allowed to be outside of prison at all. I'm going to have to remember that one.

^^^ I agree with you. And through my posts, I am trying to highlight how many of us are conditioned to go along with whatever comes next, with minimal resistance.  

Yes, all the "experts" out there are already selling "behavioral indicators". Funny thing is, that notion has roots in "fight against terrorism".  

 

Defense contractors are making tons of money building these future systems that supposedly can pick up those indicators via

 

* Social networks 

* Facial recognition and expression analysis

* Credit card, and other financial data

 

So yes, next Obama is going to sell "reasonable EOs" that makes it OK to integrate these into "reasonable background checks". 

 

As a side note, I am surprised no NJ Dems picked up on this idea of creating a "DWI" list and have them on automatic "untrusted, dangerous, prohibited person" list.  Apparently there is support for that. 

Very true. I think some states do use that as a gating criteria though.

 

 

ssri

Here's some food for discussion: it seems across the country everybody is OK with having child molesters registered with the towns they live in for the rest of their lives. Why is it OK to mark the child molester for the rest of their lives but not the person who gets two DWIs?

I'm not OK with it, nor you and your Witch Du-Jour. You sound just like every other gun grabbing lib that worships at the alter of demonizing people.

Then lets get a law to lock them up or sentence them to death and be done with it. Once you accept and support notion of distrust (to the degree of denying 2A rights) of someone who committed <whatever>, you invariably support the class system, that HAS to lead to records keeping, lists, people getting on lists, having to run checks to "validate that trust factor". And THATS how we ended up where we are.

 

DUI (even second one) is YOUR pet issue, Drugs (even recreational) is MY pet issue, DV(even a disgruntled false accuse) is Joe's pet issue. Politicians combine all these and give US what we deserve and not surprisingly it looks like the system we got in NJ. We got what we deserve.

I have issue with anything that systematically affects others. Once you have put your needs ahead of the saftey of others twice then we're at the point where we do not expect a different outcome. People shouldnt need multiple warnings when it comes to others safety. So my outlook is much different then you assume.

 

The other option is that we don't hold people responsible for their actions that affect others, which would you have it?

 

It's about having self control, and its been proven time and time again that the lack of self control is consistent in a person life.

 

 

I'm really not sure what your suggesting here... Because you've gone off the rails as if keeping track of a person's DUI's is bad thing.

I'm not OK with it, nor you.

No one cares

I have issue with anything that systematically affects others. Once you have put your needs ahead of the saftey of others twice then we're at the point where we do not expect a different outcome. People shouldnt need multiple warnings when it comes to others safety. So my outlook is much different then you assume.

 

The other option is that we don't hold people responsible for their actions that affect others, which would you have it?

 

It's about having self control, and its been proven time and time again that the lack of self control is consistent in a person life.

 

 

I'm really not sure what your suggesting here... Because you've gone off the rails as if keeping track of a person's DUI's is bad thing.

Nothing off rails here. The article referred by OP suggests a "new", better background systems bases on "indicators" such as the DUI.

 

Question is, do you support a system that denies 2A rights of someone with DUI, who otherwise pays taxes, can walk free, talk free, exrevise due process, 5th etc ?

Nothing off rails here. The article referred by OP suggests a "new", better background systems bases on "indicators" such as the DUI.

 

Question is, do you support a system that denies 2A rights of someone with DUI, who otherwise pays taxes, can walk free, talk free, exrevise due process, 5th etc ?

A single DUI? No... but then again I feel multiple DUI's should be a criminal offense. The way I see it... It's not the system that is denying you these rights, you've essentially proven to everyone that you have no sense of safety or personal responsibility. Criteria I may add that established good moral character or lack there of.

 

Have you ever heard the saying your rights end where mine begin? Well I have a right to my own safety(public safety). If that is threatened then systematically removing an individual's right is essential.

A single DUI? No... but then again I feel multiple DUI's should be a criminal offense. The way I see it... It's not the system that is denying you these rights, you've essentially proven to everyone that you have no sense of safety or personal responsibility. Criteria I may add that established good moral character or lack there of.

 

Have you ever heard the saying your rights end where mine begin? Well I have a right to my own safety(public safety). If that is threatened then systematically removing an individual's right is essential.

So your view of 2A is, its something to be taken away even when same individual is allowed to exercise other rights.  Thank you for the clarification. 

So your view of 2A is, its something to be taken away even when same individual is allowed to exercise other rights. Thank you for the clarification.

I'm not sure what your getting at. You have rights that when used improperly can threaten the safety of others. You also have rights that impact others to no effect. It's not my view of the 2a its my positions of collective rights and not individual. Do you believe that because you loose one right you should loose them all?

 

Does a person loose their right to due process because they have shown dangerous levels of irresponsibility? Do they loose their rights to a fair and speedy trial? Do we remove their right to fair punishment?

 

Many rights are removed due to felonies, but not all. There is a pretty strait forward reason for it. Should they loose their rights under the 14th amendment for disabilities if disabled?

 

The only time a right can be removed from a person is if exercising it would infringe on the rights of others.