Mom sues Wal-Mart over daughter's suicide

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-12-23 09:59pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:You can kill other people with anything you want. Take this for example, which was not prevented by some of the stricted gun control in the world.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-p ... 376982.stm

Yes, very nice False Dileema Fallacy, Sea Skimmer.

Post by **Coyote** » 2004-12-23 10:00pm

Huh-- all this time I thought NICS, while called the "National" instant check system, was handled by the individual states... but, anyway, I'd still put "mental" as a category on it.

And "Knife Rampages"... those are relatively common in Japan, especially recently...

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-12-24 12:17am

Coyote wrote:Huh-- all this time I thought NICS, while called the "National" instant check system, was handled by the individual states... but, anyway, I'd still put "mental" as a category on it.

And "Knife Rampages"... those are relatively common in Japan, especially recently...

'Mental' is a category:

Federal Categories of Persons Prohibited From Receiving

1. A Person convicted of/under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, whether or not sentence was imposed. This includes misdemeanor offenses with a potential term of imprisonment in excess of two years, whether or not the sentence was imposed.

2. A person who is a fugitive from justice; for example, the subject of an active felony or misdemeanor warrant.

3. An unlawful user and/or an addict of any controlled substance; for example, a person convicted for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year; or a person with multiple arrests for the use of possession of a controlled substance within the past five years with the most recent arrest occurring within the past year; or a person found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided the test was administered within the past year.

4. A person adjudicated a mental defective or involuntarily commited to a mental institution or incompetent to handle their own affairs, including dispositions to criminal charges of found not guilty by reason of insanity or found incompetent to stand trial.

5. An alien illegally/unlawfully in the United States or a non-immigrant who does not qualify for exceptions under 18 United States Code 922(y); for example, not having possession of a valid hunting license.

6. A person dishonorably discharged from the United States Armed Forces.

7. A person who has renounced their citizenship.

8. The subject of a protection order issued after a hearing of which the respondent had notice that restrains them from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such partner. This does not include ex parte orders.

9. A person convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime which has an element or the use or attempted use of physical force or threatened use of a deadly weapon and the defendant was the spouse, former spouse, parent, guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with in the past with the victim as a spouse, parent, guardian or similar situation to a spouse, parent or guardian of the victim.

The system failed in this instance because Texas state law forbids the passing on of patient information, treating it as confidential.

And rightfully so in most cases.

Like I said earlier, it's none of the FBI's business that I was briefly on Prozac 4 years ago after Mom died, as I wasn't ajudicated (declared to be so by a court) a 'mental defective' nor was I involuntarily committed to an institution.

The only information of this type that should be shared with NICS are any court findings that a person is a 'mental defective' or has been involuntarily committed by a court. This information determines whether or not a prospective purchaser meets the legal standards set by Congress in GCA '68 as amended over the years.

My understanding of Carolyn McCarthy's proposed bill (and I could be wrong as I haven't really dug into it) is that it goes far beyond the states merely providing court records that deal with 'mental defectives' and encourages them to forward all information to the NICS database.

For reasons that have nothing to do with the gun issue, I oppose her bill on simple privacy grounds.

Unless of course my understanding is incorrect and she merely wants the states to turn over court records. Then I can favor her bill.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-12-24 12:27am

Forgot to add:

Some states do have NICS-approved substitute checks.
Here's the FBI's list.

Brady Law Point of Contact chart
[/quote]

Post by **Broomstick** » 2004-12-24 08:25am

So.... is it fair to say that we all agree that the seriously mentally ill - that is, those declared unfit, involuntarially committed, as so forth - should not be permitted to purchase or own firearms?

Then the question is... how do we insure that they do not?

And I agree - someone on Prozac for a couple months to deal with a very specific trauma, such as the death of a parent, should not be included in such a database. Nor should someone who is not clinically depressed but may be taking an anti-depressant to deal with chronic pain due to injury or illness. Anti-depressants can be used to help someone cope short-term with something, and have uses beyond treating depression. Those people are not depressed in the sense of having an illness or being irrational and are not inherently a threat to anyone.

If Texas law excludes the names of those involuntarially committed or found mentally incompentant by the courts from databases of Who Shouldn't Own Guns then Texas law is fucked up and should be corrected - but not by dumping ALL records into the system. And there must be a mechanism for correcting errors, because errors occur in any system involving people.

And after that.... how do you keep weapons other than firearms out of the hands of "psychos"? Firearms are used for massacres these days because they are, as pointed out, effective and can usually be obtained but they are certainly not the only option for mass murder. A sniper armed with a hunting bow could take out quite a few people as well. There is the knife rampage linked to earlier in this thread. Then there is the possibility of using something like, say, a boxcutter to hijack a large vehcile and slam it into a crowd or large building to cause mass death.

At which point I have to question whether some people should be permitted outside unsupervised. Involuntary committment is usually justified on the basis of the person being a danger to self or others. Granted there were some terrible abuses of committment in the first half of the 20th Century, but perhaps the pendulum swung too far the other way. Suicidal people ARE dangerous to themselves and others - it's not just a matter of keeping them away from firearms, but also keeping them off freeways and railroad tracks, roofs of tall buildings, and away from the Drano. If you can't be trusted with a firearm should you be trusted with an automobile?

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-12-24 12:44pm

So.... is it fair to say that we all agree that the seriously mentally ill - that is, those declared unfit, involuntarially committed, as so forth - should not be permitted to purchase or own firearms?

I'd qualify that with being legally declared unfit or otherwise found incompetent in a court hearing, but yes, I agree.

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2004-12-24 03:23pm

Stormbringer wrote:Because it caters heavily to the stupid, white trash crowd?

Yeah, because its so rare to see stupid cullurd folks settin' a foot in one of them thar Wal-Marts...

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-12-24 05:17pm

HemlockGrey wrote:

It's a lot easier to kill people with a shotgun than it is with a knife, and "knife massacres" are rather rare compared to shootings.

That doesn't change the stupidity of Durandal's assertion that it takes a gun for a person to be able to kill others.

Post by **Coyote** » 2004-12-25 02:22pm

Yes, "Mental" as in total whackjob, violent, inable to perform in society-- a chronic debilitating condition-- not a period of depression or trauma. I shouyld have specified.

Post by **haas mark** » 2004-12-26 05:10am

...Something tells me that (a) she wasn't taking her meds, (b) the meds weren't working for her, (c) her parents really didn't give a shit, or (d) her parents were too scared to really understand what was going on and didn't know how to deal with it.

Further, on one hand I understand why some databases have mental records, but I also understand the confidentiality. Then again, I think that there should be a list of people that could be possible threats to themselves and/or others when it comes to weaponry and firearms. I, myself, would not be able to get a firearm if that were the case, because I'd be listed as a danger to myself. -shrugs- And I'm fully ready to admit that. But either way, this suit is a crock.