there was something wrong with this guyext_308670December 14 2012, 20:00:02 UTC
But until we know more about him (like his name, what he has done in the past, etc) we can't know what it was.
Mental illness is a bar to firearm ownership. Because of laws like HIPPA, the government won't know if you're taking anti-psycotic meds, or seeing a psychologist or are in therapy for anger issues. Unless you get in trouble with the law, it does not turn up on any back ground checks.
This is to "protect" people with mental illnesses from discrimination.
To keep anyone with any possible mental illness from owning a firearm, this would require the FBI to have unrestricted access to your personal medical files to be able to review any drug you have ever taken, know what doctors or therapy you have ever received. I'm very sure I don't want that.
Something is wrong that this guy (or guys? the media can't seem to figure this out yet). He should not have had a weapon, much less a dull spoon. But how would anyone have known if he never was committed or treated under court order? With out unlimited access to everyone's medical records the government would not be able to check. (granted this guy could turn out to be a long term committed/jailed nut who had been in and out of prison and mental centers for all his life. We don't know at this time. If he did, someone screwed up in letting him buy a firearm)
Re: there was something wrong with this guylizziecroweDecember 14 2012, 20:17:40 UTC
There are instances where the government can override HIPPA to get med records. We just need ti to be BEFORE something like this happens. And it would NOT require the FBI to have unrestricted access to meds records. It would, by its very definition be restricted. One purpose, one reason for access, simple yea or nay. Considering the nature of my FBI file, I wouldn't be surprised it there's something in there already, yet I still passed a federal background check for my job.
Re: there was something wrong with this guylizziecroweDecember 14 2012, 20:19:10 UTC
The FBI wouldn't even have to say WHY you were denied. If credit bureaus can do it, the FBI can do it. The three major credit bureaus don't say why people are denied credit based on certain criteria. The FBI is somehow incapable of this? I doubt it.
Actually, both the Tucson and the Virginia Tech shooters were known to have mental issues. Both had been reported by other students aas displaying threatening behavior well before the shootings, and local authorities had looked into it but not reported the information to the right places.
Re: there was something wrong with this guyblaisepascalDecember 14 2012, 20:38:05 UTC
HIPPA is not an issue, legally. Federal law bans selling guns to someone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective, or has been committed to a mental institution, and the forms one fills out to buy a gun ask about that. Adjudication is a court record, not a medical one, as is involuntary commitment.
Connecticut law, applicable in the immediate case, bans issuing a handgun eligibility permit to anyone who has been released (within the last 20 years) from custody after a successful insanity defense, or to anyone who has been confined in a mental hospital within the last 12 months by court order. In both cases, it's the court's actions which strip gun eligibility, not a medical review covered by HIPPA.
The difficulty with open medical files for this is that a large chunk of the population has, at one time or another, received treatment for mental illnesses, and the number of mass killers is very small. I know this is the 2nd public mass shooting this week, but this week was exceptional. Even if it were normal, that would be about 100 mass shootings a year, in a population of 300 million, or one mass killer per 3 million people. Any sort of deep dive into medical records to catch that small population is going to have a very high false-positive rate, and won't catch those who have no history of mental illness. It may even be counter-productive, as it may discourage those who need it from seeking help.
Mental illness is a bar to firearm ownership. Because of laws like HIPPA, the government won't know if you're taking anti-psycotic meds, or seeing a psychologist or are in therapy for anger issues. Unless you get in trouble with the law, it does not turn up on any back ground checks.
This is to "protect" people with mental illnesses from discrimination.
To keep anyone with any possible mental illness from owning a firearm, this would require the FBI to have unrestricted access to your personal medical files to be able to review any drug you have ever taken, know what doctors or therapy you have ever received. I'm very sure I don't want that.
Something is wrong that this guy (or guys? the media can't seem to figure this out yet). He should not have had a weapon, much less a dull spoon. But how would anyone have known if he never was committed or treated under court order? With out unlimited access to everyone's medical records the government would not be able to check. (granted this guy could turn out to be a long term committed/jailed nut who had been in and out of prison and mental centers for all his life. We don't know at this time. If he did, someone screwed up in letting him buy a firearm)
Reply
We have to draw the line SOMEHWERE.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Connecticut law, applicable in the immediate case, bans issuing a handgun eligibility permit to anyone who has been released (within the last 20 years) from custody after a successful insanity defense, or to anyone who has been confined in a mental hospital within the last 12 months by court order. In both cases, it's the court's actions which strip gun eligibility, not a medical review covered by HIPPA.
The difficulty with open medical files for this is that a large chunk of the population has, at one time or another, received treatment for mental illnesses, and the number of mass killers is very small. I know this is the 2nd public mass shooting this week, but this week was exceptional. Even if it were normal, that would be about 100 mass shootings a year, in a population of 300 million, or one mass killer per 3 million people. Any sort of deep dive into medical records to catch that small population is going to have a very high false-positive rate, and won't catch those who have no history of mental illness. It may even be counter-productive, as it may discourage those who need it from seeking help.
Reply
Leave a comment