Skip to main content

View Diary: Armed Society, Polite Society (89 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Be careful what you wish for. (0+ / 0-)

    Undoubtedly some restrictions are going to come out of this event. The most significant change may come to those who take mood-altering prescriptions or have a person with emotional/psychological problems in the home.

    The proposal is likely to be that doctors will be required to report patients to the FBI who are under their care for psychological problems or who take anti-depressants, bi-polar medication or anti-psychotics. Those individuals will be refused permission to purchase or continue to own firearms.

    If you want a brave new world, you are likely to get more than you bargained for. Forget doctor/patient confidentiality. Your local gun shop is going to know that your family has 'issues'.

    •  And the alternative (0+ / 0-)

      is just taking all the guns away.

      Honestly, people who take long term mood altering prescriptions for which there are known side effects shouldn't be able to do a number of things.

      I believe a more surgical application of gun restriction, based on factors that appear to be the root cause of the recent rampages, is much better then universally restricting guns for everyone.

    •  That's an NRA talking point. (3+ / 0-)

      According to today's NYT (article by R.A.Friedman, MD):

      There is overwhelming epidemiological evidence that the vast majority of people with psychiatric disorders do not commit violent acts.
      And:
      Only about 4 percent of violence in the United States can be attributed to people with mental illness.
      The "laws against crazies" meme is a complete smokescreen and has almost nothing to do with gun-related deaths.    
      •  and (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        deepbreath

        The offending minority within both groups, gun users and psychologically troubled, are a small minority.
        Should the law choose to 'sacrifice' some of the majority in either group? Neither Group? Both groups?

        If the gun registry contains emotionally unstable people in its listings, does the database check who cohabits?
        To reduce privacy concerns, should the database not specify which type of disqualification?

      •  Coinceidently, there is also overwhelming evidence (0+ / 0-)

        ... that the vast majority of gun owners do not commit violent acts.

        Also, lacking in this analysis you cite is the number of these
        people suffering from psychiatric disorders that have access to fire arms ... or if their families had the decency/ common sense to keep them away from them.

        Next argument.

    •  How many drug/alcohol abusers (0+ / 0-)

      Tell their doctors that they're abusers? How many people who aren't habitual drinkers occasionally get rip-roaring drunk and turn out to be very nasty people while in that state? How many people get their firearms before a drinking or drug habit starts?

      In the mean time, no one in our family knows anyone at our local gun shop. If one of us walked in to buy a gun, how would they know if someone in the family had a problem?

      Yes, a doctor's report to the FBI could be helpful, but do we really want physicians reporting health information to the FBI?

      I appreciate that you're thinking "outside the box."

      I hope we can come up with a solution that does not require someone to have perfect information about the gun purchaser, because we'll never have perfect information about anyone (and if we ever do, that's a whole 'nother can of worms).

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site