Rampage shooting in Santa Barbara by misogynist 22-yo.

[Purple]

Elfdart you goddamn halfwit, you really think many of the people suffering from the really fun mental illnesses have the money to go around 'double-dipping' when their insurance won't cover two of the same prescriptions in a month without an express prescription from the doctor to do so? And on that note it's not all that hard to get a doctor to write a 90 day prescription for even restricted psychiatric drugs if you have a halfway good reason. I do it at least once or twice a year, and with things with fairly good street value at that.

The street value is why he is concerned. The person who needs the medicine might not have the money to double, triple or Nple dip. But the drug dealer that can buy the prescription off him does.

[Ralin]

Elfdart you goddamn halfwit, you really think many of the people suffering from the really fun mental illnesses have the money to go around 'double-dipping' when their insurance won't cover two of the same prescriptions in a month without an express prescription from the doctor to do so? And on that note it's not all that hard to get a doctor to write a 90 day prescription for even restricted psychiatric drugs if you have a halfway good reason. I do it at least once or twice a year, and with things with fairly good street value at that.

The street value is why he is concerned. The person who needs the medicine might not have the money to double, triple or Nple dip. But the drug dealer that can buy the prescription off him does.

Moot point since most every time my psychiatrist prescribes something restricted to me he sends it straight to the pharmacy. Do you really think they don't already have precautions in place for that?

Besides, off the top of my head I don't think the 'not going on a murderous rampage' drugs tend to have much in the way of street value.

And, you know. I personally would like to encourage people to have as large a supply of their 'not killing people' drugs as is feasibly possible.

[Terralthra]

I think you're missing the point. What he's saying is that we already have a system in place to make sure that people who are on street-sellable narcotics aren't getting the script filled at multiple pharmacies. That implies a database, somewhere, of who's getting x medication. There's no practical issue keeping that list from being extended to anti-psychotics and being checked as part of the routine background check for purchasing a gun. Whether that's legal, ethical, etc., is a separate issue, but it is not technically impossible, or even difficult.

Whether it would be a good idea is also up for debate, naturally, but the sheer basic concept of "You're on risperidone to manage your paranoid delusions. Maybe you shouldn't have a pistol," isn't fundamentally unsound.

[General Zod]

I think you're missing the point. What he's saying is that we already have a system in place to make sure that people who are on street-sellable narcotics aren't getting the script filled at multiple pharmacies. That implies a database, somewhere, of who's getting x medication. There's no practical issue keeping that list from being extended to anti-psychotics and being checked as part of the routine background check for purchasing a gun. Whether that's legal, ethical, etc., is a separate issue, but it is not technically impossible, or even difficult.

Whether it would be a good idea is also up for debate, naturally, but the sheer basic concept of "You're on risperidone to manage your paranoid delusions. Maybe you shouldn't have a pistol," isn't fundamentally unsound.

I think that my objection above applies here. Do you think that adding in the possibility of having part of your rights removed when you're diagnosed with certain disorders might mean people are a lot less inclined to go see a psychiatrist for help in the first place, leaving more of these cases undiagnosed?

[Terralthra]

I think you're missing the point. What he's saying is that we already have a system in place to make sure that people who are on street-sellable narcotics aren't getting the script filled at multiple pharmacies. That implies a database, somewhere, of who's getting x medication. There's no practical issue keeping that list from being extended to anti-psychotics and being checked as part of the routine background check for purchasing a gun. Whether that's legal, ethical, etc., is a separate issue, but it is not technically impossible, or even difficult.

Whether it would be a good idea is also up for debate, naturally, but the sheer basic concept of "You're on risperidone to manage your paranoid delusions. Maybe you shouldn't have a pistol," isn't fundamentally unsound.

I think that my objection above applies here. Do you think that adding in the possibility of having part of your rights removed when you're diagnosed with certain disorders might mean people are a lot less inclined to go see a psychiatrist for help in the first place, leaving more of these cases undiagnosed?

That seems like a very rational objection, but the thing is that we're talking about irrational (by definition) people. Do I think a rational mentally ill person might refrain from seeking treatment because s/he might not be able to buy a gun any more? Maybe. But a mentally ill person might also refrain from seeking treatment because psychiatrists are how the NWO brainwashes you to keep you from spreading the truth. I don't think this one thing is a deal-breaker.

[General Zod]

I think you're missing the point. What he's saying is that we already have a system in place to make sure that people who are on street-sellable narcotics aren't getting the script filled at multiple pharmacies. That implies a database, somewhere, of who's getting x medication. There's no practical issue keeping that list from being extended to anti-psychotics and being checked as part of the routine background check for purchasing a gun. Whether that's legal, ethical, etc., is a separate issue, but it is not technically impossible, or even difficult.

Whether it would be a good idea is also up for debate, naturally, but the sheer basic concept of "You're on risperidone to manage your paranoid delusions. Maybe you shouldn't have a pistol," isn't fundamentally unsound.

I think that my objection above applies here. Do you think that adding in the possibility of having part of your rights removed when you're diagnosed with certain disorders might mean people are a lot less inclined to go see a psychiatrist for help in the first place, leaving more of these cases undiagnosed?

That seems like a very rational objection, but the thing is that we're talking about irrational (by definition) people. Do I think a rational mentally ill person might refrain from seeking treatment because s/he might not be able to buy a gun any more? Maybe. But a mentally ill person might also refrain from seeking treatment because psychiatrists are how the NWO brainwashes you to keep you from spreading the truth. I don't think this one thing is a deal-breaker.

I'm just incredibly reluctant to get behind any proposals that advocate the removal of rights for being diagnosed with specific medical conditions. Mainly for the possibilities of unintended consequences down the road, on top of what I've already objected to. Who's to say that a future court won't decide it's a good idea to use the precedent to, say, sterilize or turn patients with highly contagious STDs into eunuchs on the grounds that they're preventing them from killing people?

This is on the more extreme end of things, but I think it follows the same chain of logic.

[Dragon Angel]

Also, using only the mere fact that you have been prescribed an antipsychotic would cover more people than you'd want. Antipsychotic medications, such as Abilify and Seroquel, are also prescribed to patients with severe depression in addition to their antidepressant. Unless you are prepared to include people with major depression as a potential gun violence risk, then this would not be the best idea.

[madd0ct0r]

I'm just incredibly reluctant to get behind any proposals that advocate the removal of rights for being diagnosed with specific medical conditions. Mainly for the possibilities of unintended consequences down the road, on top of what I've already objected to. Who's to say that a future court won't decide it's a good idea to use the precedent to, say, sterilize or turn patients with highly contagious STDs into eunuchs on the grounds that they're preventing them from killing people?

This is on the more extreme end of things, but I think it follows the same chain of logic.

Slipper slopes?
Does America not already have legislation equivalent to the UK's section 42 where a certifiably mentally ill patient can be restrained against their will to prevent harm to them or to others?

[Panzersharkcat]

I'm just incredibly reluctant to get behind any proposals that advocate the removal of rights for being diagnosed with specific medical conditions. Mainly for the possibilities of unintended consequences down the road, on top of what I've already objected to. Who's to say that a future court won't decide it's a good idea to use the precedent to, say, sterilize or turn patients with highly contagious STDs into eunuchs on the grounds that they're preventing them from killing people?

This is on the more extreme end of things, but I think it follows the same chain of logic.

Slipper slopes?
Does America not already have legislation equivalent to the UK's section 42 where a certifiably mentally ill patient can be restrained against their will to prevent harm to them or to others?

In California, it's Code 5150. Involuntary psychiatric hold for 72 hours. I don't know about other states, though.

[Broomstick]

Unless you are prepared to include people with major depression as a potential gun violence risk, then this would not be the best idea.

People with major depression are a potential risk for a type of gun violence called “suicide”. I'll also point out that not all suicidal people stick to just killing themselves.

I'm just incredibly reluctant to get behind any proposals that advocate the removal of rights for being diagnosed with specific medical conditions. Mainly for the possibilities of unintended consequences down the road, on top of what I've already objected to. Who's to say that a future court won't decide it's a good idea to use the precedent to, say, sterilize or turn patients with highly contagious STDs into eunuchs on the grounds that they're preventing them from killing people?

Slipper slopes?

There is precedent in the first half of the 20th Century of US states sterilizing those seen as defective. At this moment in time it seems far-fetched but in this case authority has actually slipped on that slope in the past.

Does America not already have legislation equivalent to the UK's section 42 where a certifiably mentally ill patient can be restrained against their will to prevent harm to them or to others?

In California, it's Code 5150. Involuntary psychiatric hold for 72 hours. I don't know about other states, though.

As usual, the details and specific name will vary from state to state in the US, but yes, they all have some variant of that.

[Spoonist]

There is precedent in the first half of the 20th Century of US states sterilizing those seen as defective. At this moment in time it seems far-fetched but in this case authority has actually slipped on that slope in the past.

...and well into the 1970s...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
http://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/
I don't think it would be hard to google up some proponents of forced sterilization in the US today, starting with parents to autistic children for obvious reasons.

[Geminon]

Another problem as I see it with adding those being prescribed anti-psychotics to a 'no-sell' type of list is that anti-psychotic medications are also prescribed for purposes other than treating psychosis or depression. My youngest brother was on an anti-psychotic in his teenage years. For migraines. If he had a recurrence of the migraine clusters now, and was prescribed the same treatment, should that automatically preclude him from exercising his privilege (since we're Canadian) to purchase a firearm or ammunition?

[General Zod]

Maybe a more modern example. What's to keep anti-abortion activists from using that sort of ruling to jail pregnant women that ask their doctors about abortions on the grounds that they're protecting the unborn? Abortion isn't codified into the constitution the way gun ownership is, so it doesn't enjoy nearly as much protection.

[Knife]

While minute details differ from state to state, yes the US had equivalent laws. Medical and mental health personnel have an obligation to report people who are a threat to themselves or have made a threat against another. Social workers can blue sheet, or police can pink sheet people for mandatory observation for 24-72 hours depending on particular issues. After initial observation, you can't make them stay, unless they continue to be a threat and/or agree to treatment.

You'd be surprised how many actually come in themselves though. When I was at the ED at the local hospital, working triage, a very significant amount of people would come in with mental illness looking for help. I have to say, I was a bit surprised at first.

[Ralin]

The shitstorm following the first rape victim with PTSD to be stripped of her gun ownership rights would be an epic thing to behold, let me tell you.

[General Zod]

The shitstorm following the first rape victim with PTSD to be stripped of her gun ownership rights would be an epic thing to behold, let me tell you.

I was thinking military veterans. The average conservative doesn't tend to sympathize with rape victims as much.

[Broomstick]

I have an issue with cookie-cutter denials - really, in an ideal world, this should be looked at on a case-by-case basis. Regrettably, we don't live in an ideal world.

[Ralin]

The shitstorm following the first rape victim with PTSD to be stripped of her gun ownership rights would be an epic thing to behold, let me tell you.

I was thinking military veterans. The average conservative doesn't tend to sympathize with rape victims as much.

Don't be ridiculous. The fact that she's trying to get a gun proves that she's responsible and a legitimate victim. Like, duh.

[Simon_Jester]

I have an issue with cookie-cutter denials - really, in an ideal world, this should be looked at on a case-by-case basis. Regrettably, we don't live in an ideal world.

Well, the existing means by which a person can be declared mentally unsound are all case-by-case. I see no reason why this "your gun rights are temporarily removed" list would not be. I'd think it obvious that it should.

[Broomstick]

That's true of existing means of doing so, yes, but some of these posts are proposing doing it based on what pharmaceuticals are being prescribed, regardless of the reason for that prescription.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Also, using only the mere fact that you have been prescribed an antipsychotic would cover more people than you'd want. Antipsychotic medications, such as Abilify and Seroquel, are also prescribed to patients with severe depression in addition to their antidepressant. Unless you are prepared to include people with major depression as a potential gun violence risk, then this would not be the best idea.

FYI, people with severe depression already are a major risk; you don't have to shoot others to engage in gun violence, and suicides make up about half of total gun deaths in the US. Doing what you're warning against would bring suicides down, since here's the thing: suicide is an impulsive thing. Most suiciders think about it for some time in an abstracted way, yes, but the actual decision and its execution happens spontaneously. That, I guess, is why such people are prescribed antipsychotics in addition to normal medication.

What I'm trying to say is, temporarily denying some people their 2nd Amendment might bring more benefit than harm.

[Dragon Angel]

People with major depression are a potential risk for a type of gun violence called “suicide”. I'll also point out that not all suicidal people stick to just killing themselves.

Not all people with major depression are proven suicidal, though. That's a problem with blanket considerations; as you mentioned before they should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, but judging all people with depression or all people who take antidepressants/antipsychotics as risks to themselves (or potentials for murder-suicide, but this is another matter and mindset entirely) would cover a ton more people than anyone would like.

Also, I suspect this is where part of the stigma from major depression originates: the belief that a person could, in some fit of impulsive rage, set off and go murdering while offing themselves in the end.

FYI, people with severe depression already are a major risk; you don't have to shoot others to engage in gun violence, and suicides make up about half of total gun deaths in the US. Doing what you're warning against would bring suicides down, since here's the thing: suicide is an impulsive thing. Most suiciders think about it for some time in an abstracted way, yes, but the actual decision and its execution happens spontaneously. That, I guess, is why such people are prescribed antipsychotics in addition to normal medication.

What I'm trying to say is, temporarily denying some people their 2nd Amendment might bring more benefit than harm.

But guns are only one common method of suicide. If you deny them guns to protect themselves, sure, but what's to stop denying them from other potential means of suicide? Are you going to ban them from buying rope, buying OTC drugs, or follow their every movements so they don't reach the top of a tall building or bridge?

It's not a slippery slope because if you want to ban things that are potentially dangerous to suicidal people, you can't stop half-way here. A suicidal person will find a way to kill themselves, firearm or not.

[Purple]

But guns are only one common method of suicide. If you deny them guns to protect themselves, sure, but what's to stop denying them from other potential means of suicide? Are you going to ban them from buying rope, buying OTC drugs, or follow their every movements so they don't reach the top of a tall building or bridge?

It's not a slippery slope because if you want to ban things that are potentially dangerous to suicidal people, you can't stop half-way here. A suicidal person will find a way to kill themselves, firearm or not.

Methods matter. They matter a lot. Most suicides happen in a moment of impulsive action. They might be premeditated at times but ultimately it is that moment that you gather your courage and do it before you change your mind. And more often than not if the means chosen allow the time to do so people do change their mind or are discovered and can be saved. A drug overdose or slashing your self means you take a long time to die even if you do it just right. So it gives you that much more time to reconsider or be found. A bullet to the head takes moments both to execute and to start acting. So it does not give you that chance. And this is all assuming you do which is not a given. Slash your self the wrong way or drink too much of the wrong pill and you will just end up throwing up, bleeding or generally in a non life threatening world of pain. Shoot your self in roughly the right area though and you won't have such efficiency problems. Thus limiting access to firearms would make a disproportionate effect on successful suicide rates.

[PKRudeBoy]

People with major depression are a potential risk for a type of gun violence called “suicide”. I'll also point out that not all suicidal people stick to just killing themselves.

Not all people with major depression are proven suicidal, though. That's a problem with blanket considerations; as you mentioned before they should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, but judging all people with depression or all people who take antidepressants/antipsychotics as risks to themselves (or potentials for murder-suicide, but this is another matter and mindset entirely) would cover a ton more people than anyone would like.

Also, I suspect this is where part of the stigma from major depression originates: the belief that a person could, in some fit of impulsive rage, set off and go murdering while offing themselves in the end.

FYI, people with severe depression already are a major risk; you don't have to shoot others to engage in gun violence, and suicides make up about half of total gun deaths in the US. Doing what you're warning against would bring suicides down, since here's the thing: suicide is an impulsive thing. Most suiciders think about it for some time in an abstracted way, yes, but the actual decision and its execution happens spontaneously. That, I guess, is why such people are prescribed antipsychotics in addition to normal medication.

What I'm trying to say is, temporarily denying some people their 2nd Amendment might bring more benefit than harm.

But guns are only one common method of suicide. If you deny them guns to protect themselves, sure, but what's to stop denying them from other potential means of suicide? Are you going to ban them from buying rope, buying OTC drugs, or follow their every movements so they don't reach the top of a tall building or bridge?

It's not a slippery slope because if you want to ban things that are potentially dangerous to suicidal people, you can't stop half-way here. A suicidal person will find a way to kill themselves, firearm or not.

When the UK switched from coal gas to natural gas for ovens the overall suicide rate dropped by about a third. Sometimes getting rid of the most convenient method is that effective.

[Dragon Angel]

Methods matter. They matter a lot. Most suicides happen in a moment of impulsive action. They might be premeditated at times but ultimately it is that moment that you gather your courage and do it before you change your mind. And more often than not if the means chosen allow the time to do so people do change their mind or are discovered and can be saved. A drug overdose or slashing your self means you take a long time to die even if you do it just right. So it gives you that much more time to reconsider or be found. A bullet to the head takes moments both to execute and to start acting. So it does not give you that chance. And this is all assuming you do which is not a given. Slash your self the wrong way or drink too much of the wrong pill and you will just end up throwing up, bleeding or generally in a non life threatening world of pain. Shoot your self in roughly the right area though and you won't have such efficiency problems. Thus limiting access to firearms would make a disproportionate effect on successful suicide rates.

Guns aren't perfect, either. It's very possible to shoot yourself and not immediately die. You could slowly bleed to death, you could be found and treated but become permanently disabled or a vegetable for life, etcetera. If you could argue that the instant nature of a bullet would prevent people from going back on their courage, then you could also argue the same for anyone on a precipice or anyone setting up a novice-to-amateur noose. Just as not everyone knows how to set up a noose to instantly kill themselves, not everyone will aim precisely at a location where they will die instantaneously.

When the UK switched from coal gas to natural gas for ovens the overall suicide rate dropped by about a third. Sometimes getting rid of the most convenient method is that effective.

That's actually quite interesting. I'm not too familiar with oven-based suicides, so the history behind this is something to think about.