Background checks and the "mentally ill"

[FireBirdDS]

I've got a pro-gun control coworker trying to engage me yet again, this time about the failed Toomey-Manchin vote. He drums up countless "what-if" scenarios expecting me to have an answer or remedy for each one of them. A common argument he's been bringing up the past few weeks and again today are private sales to individuals with "mental illnesses" like schizophrenia and such. I think you can see how the what-if"s snowball from there with no end. He asks me if guns should be sold to such individuals. Obviously I don't have an answer for every damn scenario. I won't say much and just let him burn himself out before going back to work, but that comes off as "backing down" and looking to have no logical responses.

My bottom line question is for suggestions on how to deal with this question and other what-if questions that are inevitably gonna be fired at me.

 

[MikeDVB]

Should cars be sold to the mentally ill? Hammers? Bats? Forks? How about background checks and mental screenings for anything that has the potential to do harm? Want a pencil? Better pass that psych exam.

 

[jon5212]

I talk to lots of people everyday who have no business driving a car yet they still do and cause accidents.

 

[MikeDVB]

I talk to lots of people everyday who have no business driving a car yet they still do and cause accidents.

Yep, we should ban them or require psych exams...

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Once an argument/discussion gets cemented in hypotheticals, it's already gone.

They can carry on, endlessly, until they feel they've found a one-in-a-million situation where you're wrong. Somehow makes them feel good.

Don't get caught in hypotheticals. Always provide logic and facts in return.

 

[subtlesixer03]

I just simply bring up the what if we restrict the first amendment or hell any other amendment the way we do the second. The truely vilent mentally ill need to be locked up plain and simple.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Jared Loughner passed a background check.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

My bottom line question is for suggestions on how to deal with this question and other what-if questions that are inevitably gonna be fired at me.

Background checks do not work.

If the law is worthless, why have it.

The useless laws weaken the necessary laws.

 

[Fletch]

We shouldn't check backgrounds at all. We should deal with each person as they behave in the present.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

We shouldn't check backgrounds at all.

Imagine background checks for books, newspapers or the Internet?

Law schools would close as professors rushed to microphones to lecture, even non-NPR, audiences about "prior restraint".

All that strutting about and grabbing of lapels as brave defenders of "civil liberties" goes right out the window when the RKBA is involved. Utter rubbish.

 

[ModernGunner]

...He asks me if guns should be sold to such individuals...

My bottom line question is for suggestions on how to deal with this question and other what-if questions that are inevitably gonna be fired at me.

Firebird, just a suggestion that's worked for me over the years. When someone hits you with what is obviously a rhetorical argument that is just meant to be argumentative, I've found it works best to 'hit the ball back in their court', and make THEM 'justify' their ridiculous position.

In the case of the mentally ill and the now-failed bill, ask your friend "Is it okay if I (you, personally) go through your (your friends) complete medical and mental health records and show them to whomever I want without further permission from you or knowledge of whom is passing judgment on you about it?"

When he says something like "Don't be stupid" or something similar, then tell him that's what the Manchin-Toomey bill was perpetrating.

If he says "Sure, I don't care", THEN you tell him that the Manchin-Toomey proposal didn't permit that, nor does ANY other legislation, and unless it DOES it will do NOTHING to stop some psycho like Hasan or Loughner from getting a gun.

ANOTHER approach - Tell him you AGREE with him. LOL, that always throws them off, right off the bat!

Tell him you think that anyone that's EVER been on ANY sort of 'mood stabilizer' prescription medication, has EVER been to a psychiatrist, psychologist, Therapist, Marriage Counselor or similar should be permanently prohibited from even LOOKING at guns at the LGS.

AND, since we know that mental illness CAN be hereditary, ANYONE applying to purchase a gun MUST provide their full medical and mental health records PLUS the full medical and mental health records for the parents and immediate family to review by a government agency that has no experience in determining whether those records should allow or prohibit ownership of a gun. If ANYONE in the family has any history of mental issues, or physical issues that can cause mental instability, that person must be permanently prohibited from owning a gun.

OR simply ask him "Define 'mentally ill'? Is someone who was stressed out over a divorce or death of a loved one qualify as 'mentally ill'? Because they're not in their 'normal mind' at such times. Give me an EXACT definition of 'mentally ill', and I'll agree to prohibit THOSE people".

OR ask him why HIS politicians (the Obama crowd) have proposed Z-E-R-O legislation that keeps criminals from illegally obtaining guns nor ANY legislation that provides for more severe punishment and a mandatory 15 year sentence for ANY gang member, bike gang member, or ex-convict caught with a weapon AND allows frequent and mandatory stop, search and immediate arrest authority to any of those caught with a weapon?

Just some thoughts. 'Cause that's what it's gonna take to do what he wants, and his cronies have proposed NONE of that. The ONLY thing they've proposed is prohibiting the law-abiding citizens from having guns to protect themself and others from those exact criminals and deranged lunatics.

 

[Wdsman11]

Firebird, just a suggestion that's worked for me over the years. When someone hits you with what is obviously a rhetorical argument that is just meant to be argumentative, I've found it works best to 'hit the ball back in their court', and make THEM 'justify' their ridiculous position.

In the case of the mentally ill and the now-failed bill, ask your friend "Is it okay if I (you, personally) go through your (your friends) complete medical and mental health records and show them to whomever I want without further permission from you or knowledge of whom is passing judgment on you about it?"

When he says something like "Don't be stupid" or something similar, then tell him that's what the Manchin-Toomey bill was perpetrating.

If he says "Sure, I don't care", THEN you tell him that the Manchin-Toomey proposal didn't permit that, nor does ANY other legislation, and unless it DOES it will do NOTHING to stop some psycho like Hasan or Loughner from getting a gun.

ANOTHER approach - Tell him you AGREE with him. LOL, that always throws them off, right off the bat!

Tell him you think that anyone that's EVER been on ANY sort of 'mood stabilizer' prescription medication, has EVER been to a psychiatrist, psychologist, Therapist, Marriage Counselor or similar should be permanently prohibited from even LOOKING at guns at the LGS.

AND, since we know that mental illness CAN be hereditary, ANYONE applying to purchase a gun MUST provide their full medical and mental health records PLUS the full medical and mental health records for the parents and immediate family to review by a government agency that has no experience in determining whether those records should allow or prohibit ownership of a gun. If ANYONE in the family has any history of mental issues, or physical issues that can cause mental instability, that person must be permanently prohibited from owning a gun.

OR simply ask him "Define 'mentally ill'? Is someone who was stressed out over a divorce or death of a loved one qualify as 'mentally ill'? Because they're not in their 'normal mind' at such times. Give me an EXACT definition of 'mentally ill', and I'll agree to prohibit THOSE people".

OR ask him why HIS politicians (the Obama crowd) have proposed Z-E-R-O legislation that keeps criminals from illegally obtaining guns nor ANY legislation that provides for more severe punishment and a mandatory 15 year sentence for ANY gang member, bike gang member, or ex-convict caught with a weapon AND allows frequent and mandatory stop, search and immediate arrest authority to any of those caught with a weapon?

Just some thoughts. 'Cause that's what it's gonna take to do what he wants, and his cronies have proposed NONE of that. The ONLY thing they've proposed is prohibiting the law-abiding citizens from having guns to protect themself and others from those exact criminals and deranged lunatics.

If he is against guns altogether then after he agrees to all the above, then you add that the above will now also apply to anything else that can take a life. Hammer, sticks, pens, rocks and the driveby killer....the automobile.
I have run into these guys a time or two, their logic doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

 

[H.T.]

Even with a back ground check. It may not give the dealer any information on the persons mental health history. Since it would fall under the persons health records which are protected by HIPPA. The only way I could see it coming up is if the Person had been convicted of a crime but sent to a Secured mental hospital.
Point being that if Kate goes to buy a gun and is being seen by a psychiatrist for multiple personality disorder. If Kate is on medication and has never been arrested. Guess what her private medical records don't pop up on the back ground check.

 

[beararms1776]

For "some" people, the thought of anyone using a firearm for self defense is enough to drive em insane.

 

[Hornett]

The whole thought of "background checks" implies some ridiculous Minority Report ability to predict what people will do.
Even if they have a history of mental illness, that does not necessarily mean that they would be violent if they had a gun.
So, what would happen is that ANYONE with even a HINT of mental illness would necessarily be disarmed and not allowed to posses a firearm.
And we have the majority suffering for the few.

 

[JWAS]

people with mental illness are more likely going to be a victim vs the perpetrator of a violent crime

 

[cosermann]

Ask your coworker, what if we rolled all gun laws back to 1932?

We were certainly safer then. Oh, but blood would run in the streets! That's what they said when shall issue legislation was up for a vote. It passed. Their fears never materialized.

The assault weapons ban resulted in NO decrease in crime when it was enacted - contrary to the left's promises, and resulted in NO increase in crime when it expired - again contrary to the left's predictions.

Your coworkers side of the argument is batting 0.000.

We cannot keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them 100% of the time (consistent with the Constitution), but we CAN promote firearms in the hands of the law abiding, which far out number the nuts, and will contain the damage.

History proves this to be true. Hence, roll all gun laws back to 1932.

 

[beararms1776]

people with mental illness are more likely going to be a victim vs the perpetrator of a violent crime

More often than not, it's the perp that is mentally ill and of course the perp would have many thinking their victim is ill.

 

[rvb]

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Ben Franklin

 

[Pointman]

I often ask which is worse, the possibility of the mentally ill person doing something wrong, or the abuse allowing a bureaucrat to determine someones rights without the due process of the courts?

"do you really want your rights determined by the mindset that hides bags of mail in their garage so they can take the afternoons off?"

Of course that only works with the intellectually honest of which there are few in the opposition else they'd be making logical arguments rather than emotional pleas.

Freedom is a rough and tumble thing and some people are simply not up to it either because they're afraid or because their lazy.