Loophole Closed... Really?
Virgina's governor closed a loophole in the gun laws today which seeks to ban all people with a history of mental illness - including outpatients - from purchasing guns. On the surface, this sounds like a good idea.
On the surface, Cho Seung-hui was just a shy student...
I'm not trying to be clever here; let's think about this for a moment:
According to the BBC article, this precludes why the people were patients in the first place. Ostensibly, we are left to assume that this includes people who have been admitted for drug abuse problems - even those who might have issues with legal substances, such as alcohol or OTC medication - it does not include those who voluntarily check themselves in.
So, basically, if someone says they are hearing voices, they can be "ordered" to undergo treatment - even if they are not violent and have never shown any violent tendencies - but a violently abusive drunk who concedes to a family intervention and "voluntarily" checks himself into rehab for a day or two can still purchase a firearm.
This isn't a real "fix," this is just a patch to make people feel a little bit safer, a little bit less upset that the system is increasingly nothing more than a series of "quick-fix patches" like this: new shades of gray that only further blur the lines between what is and what should be.
Wouldn't it make more sense to require new gun owners to actually go through a firearms safety course? One which includes a general mental health exam, in addition to checking their past records? But I'm sure that would cost way too much, wouldn't it?
You can only buy so many $300,000 screwdrivers before you need to raise taxes again, after all!
»
- manodogs's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 561 reads
We're also ignoring another important factor, MD.
The reason that Cho Seung-hui was probably not committed is because funding for mental health has been cut so drastically. Hell, half our homeless population came from mental institutions that were shut down due to budget cuts. And we continue to spawn people who cannot co-exist with the rest of society (and that's another subject in and of itself) and these people are now denied any chance of care. In the case of Cho Seung-hui, he was not the only one that suffered for this lack of care - his victims and his family also suffered. I have no doubt, there are many, many more out there just like him.
I think it's a great idea to require new gun owners to take a mental health exam - it seems to me it's criminally negligent not to have this requirement. Although, most of the people I know, including me, would never be allowed to own a gun if that were a requirement. LOL!
Mental Health Tests
Well, they would be pretty general and standardized. They shouldn't be looking for anything too common or anything; they'd be looking for deep-seeded problems, openly aberrant behavior, and so forth. Further, some of the most important questions would be along the lines of, "Have you ever been in a mental hospital or received mental help? Are you taking any medication now and if so, what? Are you The Walrus? Have you ever spoken to The Walrus? Coo-coo-ka-choo?" etc.
Someone like Seung-hui would have been pretty easy to spot and that's important. If he wasn't able to maintain a regular countenance and attitude during his regular life, I think a qualified professional would get a pretty good idea that he "ain't right" by talking to him and going through a general Q&A.
- Manodogs
See there, MD, I told you I'd fail the test.
The Walrus has dinner at my house at least once a week.
As for mental health tests, there are dozens of them available that test for general stability and none of them would single out someone who was merely homophobic as a high risk. That trait would also have to be accompanied by one or more other traits that put that person in a high-risk category.
We must remember
that just because a politician says he is fixing something (closing a loophole), does not mean that he really is.
My concern with the testing is that it would be very subjective. Who would set the boundaries? Some call it a hate crime if a person condemns homosexuality. Would that label then disqualify the person from owning a gun?
djbtol
Homosexuality and Mental Health
Homosexuality may still be on the books as a mental illness or "aberrant behavior." It was supposed to have been removed like in the 1950s or so, but I do not recall if that was here or just in Japan.
Additionally, Japan no longer recognizes the umbrella "illness" of Paranoid Schizophrenia. As I argued a few years back, Paranoid Schizophrenia is not an actual ILLNESS, in and of itself; it is actually comprised of a number of other illnesses or "aberrations."
Further, I'm a little worried that the press keeps referring to general paranoia as an illness or "unwanted thought process," because let's face it: one guy shot up a school in the same week some guy stormed a NASA workplace and shot and killed himself and another employee, and last week, some guy went on a rampage in a shopping mall.
Seems to me that a general paranoia is pretty damned logical nowadays.
- Manodogs
