Posted on Apr 4, 2018
Why aren't military/veterans the first to advocate for mental health screenings for gun ownership?
30.5K
602
199
145
145
0
And here's why I say that: what's the first thing we do when we identify a soldier as a mental health hazard? *TAKE THEIR WEAPON AWAY.*
2nd Amendment
Gun Control
Constitution
Mental Health
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 107
86
86
0
I oppose all gun restrictions.
If you are not in government custody you should have all of your rights. Even if people don't have all of their rights, my rights should not be infringed upon to ensure someone else has their rights denied.
If you are not in government custody you should have all of your rights. Even if people don't have all of their rights, my rights should not be infringed upon to ensure someone else has their rights denied.
(86)
(0)
Sgt Christopher Miller
MAJ Bryan Zeski - I never said it wasn't under assault (it is). I also didn't mention the hoops that one must jump through to obtain some of the previously mentioned items. Between the detailed forms, highly intrusive background checks, $200 tax stamp (essentially a poll tax) for NFA items, as well as the overall amount of governmental red tape. Some of those items also cost tens of thousands of dollars to own and maintain.
(0)
(0)
PO1 Jesse Armstrong
Hey Guys, Its not infringement but I think common sense should be applied. In every situation related to having the right to bare arms it should never be infringed upon by government. However, remember there are a lot of brainwashed, antisocial, fear Mongering end times, end of the world thinkers out there that can be really dangerous. A lot of mentally ill people who have these guns and ammunitions that make it hard for us in the end when they do some really stupid stuff...
(0)
(0)
PO1 Jesse Armstrong
We can never be a gun free zone in any circumstances because we the militia are a well trained group who can defend this nation against a tyrannical government and there supporters...
(2)
(0)
Sgt Frank Staples
PO1 Jesse Armstrong - The problem is, Jesse, that I have read on this forum, military members who think that semi-automatic AR 15's should not be allowed for American citizens! What hogwash! My full semi-auto clip magazine assault rifle is safe for even a general to use!
(0)
(0)
We have laws on the books dealing with mental health now that are not being enforced in part because agencies do not talk with each other, incompetence, or privacy concerns, so no we do not need new laws. Time after time, these shooters have been on the radar of multiple agencies and nothing was done.
(62)
(0)
(3)
(0)
SSgt Ronald Orso
What people aren't realizing is that the VAST majority of these shooters are NOT mentally ill. They are merely EVIL. They know right from wrong, they just don't care, and I say that as a retired LEO of 25 years. What changed from the 20th century???? The way parents have given up their responsibility to raise children correctly.
(11)
(0)
LCDR Bruce Cooley
.....as with most of our laws, ENFORCEMENT is the real issue. We have way too many gun laws....and it appears (From the way the media is reporting it) that enforcement is haphazard at best.
(4)
(0)
42
42
0
Well then, mental health has a wide variety of definitions and issues, we already have laws preventing folks with mental issues from buying and possessing firearms, we don't need addition PRE-CRIME laws added to the books when we have so many laws that are not enforced as it is. This last school shooting was easily prevented if folks would have done their jobs, so it isn't an easy fix.
(42)
(0)
SSG Robert Webster
PO1 Don Rowan - Did you even read my statement? If not, I would suggest that you go back and read it; otherwise you may have a problem with comprehension of what I wrote. Or perhaps you missed it.
(0)
(0)
PO1 Don Rowan
SSG Robert Webster - Read what??? Enforce the laws we already Have? Did you read my post? Those laws were ignored because it was a setup between the city government and the police NOT to enforce those laws because it would affect the monies they were receiving from said government. Perhaps you should read the further developments on this story.
(0)
(0)
SSG Robert Webster
PO1 Don Rowan - That is just it, they did not enforce the law or school policies and you are correct, they (the authorities responsible) did not do it because of $$. That however does not alter the supposition that if the law and school policies had been followed that in all likely hood that this incident would not have occurred. And that is the bottom line.
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
15
15
0
For the very simple reason that "mental health" is a very subjective determination. If I truly believed (which I don't) that the impetus was 100% about safety, I'd be less skeptical. Unfortunately, I, and presumably many others, believe there is serious momentum towards more broad reductions of our rights regarding firearms...and loosely defined "mental health screenings" may provide a chink in the armor of the 2nd Amendment.
For example, the "third rail" of most veterans' interest discussions is disability benefit. None of us want to see deserving vets shorted the aid and support due them, but I think most of us perceive it's grown into something more than that. If at some point, local, state or federal legislation determines that "mental illness" includes many of the behaviors, issues and challenges associated, there may come a time when many of "us" couldn't own a weapon-even if our service was ten, twenty or fifty years ago. To my mind, that poses some interesting questions relating to the application of such controls and any possible ulterior motives.
That being said, we shouldn't hamper law enforcement in prosecuting reasonable acts in the interest of public safety. If there are not already existing laws permitting it (I'm guessing there are), then I wouldn't personally want to see an individual who's made threats, posted them online, or taken actions strongly indicating their intent allowed to retain weapons just because of their "rights". Rather than enacting "blanket" policy changes, it might be more effective to focus on the methodology and limits LE entities currently operate under in such cases.
Ultimately, we have to remember that statistically speaking, the tragedies that spark such discussions and debates are rare. That doesn't make any one such incident any less terrible, or the suggested resolutions any less valuable...it just means we can't allow ourselves to be convinced towards decisions that may have far reaching, negative consequence. While these highly publicized events are "rare"...violent crimes such as armed-robbery, assault, rape and murder are not. Far from stemming the flood, wide-ranging reductions in our 2nd Amendment rights may only serve to make the average American more vulnerable.
For example, the "third rail" of most veterans' interest discussions is disability benefit. None of us want to see deserving vets shorted the aid and support due them, but I think most of us perceive it's grown into something more than that. If at some point, local, state or federal legislation determines that "mental illness" includes many of the behaviors, issues and challenges associated, there may come a time when many of "us" couldn't own a weapon-even if our service was ten, twenty or fifty years ago. To my mind, that poses some interesting questions relating to the application of such controls and any possible ulterior motives.
That being said, we shouldn't hamper law enforcement in prosecuting reasonable acts in the interest of public safety. If there are not already existing laws permitting it (I'm guessing there are), then I wouldn't personally want to see an individual who's made threats, posted them online, or taken actions strongly indicating their intent allowed to retain weapons just because of their "rights". Rather than enacting "blanket" policy changes, it might be more effective to focus on the methodology and limits LE entities currently operate under in such cases.
Ultimately, we have to remember that statistically speaking, the tragedies that spark such discussions and debates are rare. That doesn't make any one such incident any less terrible, or the suggested resolutions any less valuable...it just means we can't allow ourselves to be convinced towards decisions that may have far reaching, negative consequence. While these highly publicized events are "rare"...violent crimes such as armed-robbery, assault, rape and murder are not. Far from stemming the flood, wide-ranging reductions in our 2nd Amendment rights may only serve to make the average American more vulnerable.
(15)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
You present a solid argument. I'm just tired of *NOTHING* being done every time a mass shooting like this happens.
(0)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
I think any decent human being is; being a parent myself-the threat is certainly one I take seriously. Still, if we start the discussion with a position that demands law-abiding, responsible citizens "give something up", we might be committing the proverbial, "urinating against the direction of airflow".
Someone doesn't need to be "mentally unstable" to be evil. Owing a high-capacity, semi-automatic weapon doesn't make someone a would be assassin. Being un-armed doesn't make someone "good". The reasons "why", and the means of combating them probably go into territory we'd rather not speak to as a society...the emptiness of subjective values, the desensitization borne out of total exposure, and the acute cynicism created by constant dissatisfaction all likely play part.
Someone doesn't need to be "mentally unstable" to be evil. Owing a high-capacity, semi-automatic weapon doesn't make someone a would be assassin. Being un-armed doesn't make someone "good". The reasons "why", and the means of combating them probably go into territory we'd rather not speak to as a society...the emptiness of subjective values, the desensitization borne out of total exposure, and the acute cynicism created by constant dissatisfaction all likely play part.
(2)
(0)
13
13
0
Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union - Wikipedia
There was systematic political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union,[1] based on the interpretation of political opposition or dissent as a psychiatric problem.[2] It was called "psychopathological mechanisms" of dissent.[3]
(13)
(0)
SSG Robert Webster
SGT (Join to see) - Some of them do, most soldiers and even a greater number of civilians do not know that, unless they actually attend the courses.
(2)
(1)
SGT (Join to see)
SSG Robert Webster - Well, I actually attended the Sapper Leader Course, in which I learned to make things like ammonium nitrate and fougasse. There was no screening of any sort.
(1)
(0)
CPT Lawrence Cable
There were a number of abuses in the pre Mental Health Patient Rights movement days, but nothing like in the USSR. But what we have accomplished here is to take people that aren't capable of functioning in normal society and putting them out on the street and made it very difficult in most states to involuntarily commit someone. So what we have instead is 20 percent or more of the prison population there with serious mental illnesses and 40 percent of the homeless too. So instead of any care, we throw them in jail and let the rest live on the street. Then we act surprised when one of the real crazies does something that harms other people.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Very much so. I'm just concerned about the types of people who want medical doctors to ask their patients if they own firearms during appointments about unrelated things. If there is some precipitating reason to believe that a person is mentally ill and a threat to themselves or others, then a process to deal with that should go into motion. However, the purchasing of a firearm should not be considered such a precipitating event or action. So I resist the idea of conducting mental health screenings on purchasers of firearms. I would not trust the impartiality or accuracy of such screenings and I believe such screenings would have political purposes.
(1)
(0)
10
10
0
Gun Control is all about controlling people. There is a global agenda to disarm citizens of the USA, which is priority one among the global elite, and they use and stir-up a frenzy among the left to keep gun control as the top issue every time there is a shooting; and the terrorists love it. Those who were in the military get some of the best instruction on gun safety. But, they use PTSD as justification to disarm vets. When we kicked God out of our schools and replaced Him with social justice and introduced them to other religions; including pagan studies, we left our young people increasingly more vulnerable to a violent world with a secular view void of many truths.
(10)
(0)
PO1 Gerald Sutton
I went to school in the 60'same and we didn't have god in schools then either. We didn't have god in the pledge or money until Eisenhower was president. That was because of russia and communism. Now we don't fear communism and have let the Russians corrupt our political system. So yea, we have more to worry about with them than going back to the puritan days.
(0)
(0)
PO1 Gerald Sutton
CPT Bob Coleman The constitution calls for separation of church and state. Reason number one of keeping religion out of public (state) schools.
(0)
(0)
9
9
0
I don't have a problem with keeping guns out of the hands of mentally ill people. The problem is - who decides who's mentally ill? I've heard it said by psychology professors (and other assorted "intellects") that belief in God is a sign of mental illness (some religious folks might claim the opposite). I have two buddies, veterans, who were diagnosed with PTSD from their service by their VA providers and found themselves visited by the local sheriff to pick up their guns due to their State's stringent rules on such things.
Look at how folks on opposing sides in the last election have labeled each other - it's kind of a slippery slope. People laugh about "slippery slopes" until we hit the bottom of one and wonder how we got there.
There was more than enough ammo (pardon the term) to do something about Cruz - it appears not enough "i"s were dotted or "t"s crossed and it appears no one talked to each other and were afraid to act due to political correctness.
There are some steps we can take to deter such tragedies, but to borrow from Franklin (Ben), we have a choice, to live in a free society or a totally safe one. We really can't have both. I personally choose freedom.
Look at how folks on opposing sides in the last election have labeled each other - it's kind of a slippery slope. People laugh about "slippery slopes" until we hit the bottom of one and wonder how we got there.
There was more than enough ammo (pardon the term) to do something about Cruz - it appears not enough "i"s were dotted or "t"s crossed and it appears no one talked to each other and were afraid to act due to political correctness.
There are some steps we can take to deter such tragedies, but to borrow from Franklin (Ben), we have a choice, to live in a free society or a totally safe one. We really can't have both. I personally choose freedom.
(9)
(0)
SSG Dave Johnston
The Thought Police are real........... if the VA Psyrinks are going to turn you in regardless of how mentally stable you are??? How stable are the Psyrinks?
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
LE acting on reports from citizens of possible individual(s) with possible mental illness, whether it's through speech or actions, is as good as the ROEs were in Iraq prior to OIR. Those charge with the ability to stop possible crimes/terror attack(s) failed to act because of possible repercussions from gov't/media, i.e. jail, public backlash, etc. Until the (mentally) individual performs an attack then the fear of taking said individual into custody will create severe backlash just like if you shot at an incoming vehicle perceived to be a threat and stopping it or killing the driver without actually going through your ROE then you could be subject to severe backlash/punishment.
(0)
(0)
9
9
0
Honestly? Because the US Government has a horrible track record of treating Mental Health issues. Whether it is Identifying, Tracking, Treating, or you name it.
That's not including False Positives or False Negatives....
That's not including False Positives or False Negatives....
(9)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
SSG (Join to see) - I'm all for fixing Military Medicine & the VHA. I am OPPOSED at a systemic level to tying either of those things to Civil Liberties, because we know they are flawed. Just like you don't put your kids in an unsafe car, you don't tie your Protected Rights to a System that you know doesn't work correctly.
Fix one system before you advocate tying another more important system to it...
Fix one system before you advocate tying another more important system to it...
(1)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
Not to mention our Federal Law Enforcement having a bad track record dealing with reports. Te Citizenry is told, "See something, say something". Seems like it's doing a lot of nothing. Look at the Nashville shooting, the FBI was told apparently prior to the event. I get it, not all reports are deemed credible but they've been credible lately.
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
5
5
0
define mental health screenings? going to therapy? marriage counseling? feeling sad?
(5)
(0)
SSG Buddy Kemper
I like where your head at, big sarge! A certain percentage of "Americans" (tryin' not to offend anyone here) think we're ALL nutts for enlisting/serving and can't be trusted to lead outside the military. They probably wouldn't want us to vote LET ALONE own a weapon(s)! Visit 90% of university or college campuses in uniform some time and see what's up. Cheers to you brother Sgt (Join to see) and thanks for keeping me and my family free.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google