fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2716 ]

[ SECRET POST #2716 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2716 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 044 secrets from Secret Submission Post #388.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - this is getting too obvious now, anon ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Mental health (and misogyny) are both issues that need to be addressed better in modern Western society to stop these shootings. But the first step isn't to wait for years for various programs aimed at addressing these issues to take affect.

The second to umpteenth steps are addressing the underlying issues, definitely. But the first step is to make sure angry, ill people do not have access to guns, pure and simple.

I wish that were so easy to ensure.

What part of it isn't easy to ensure?

Kinda hard to ensure crazies don't get guns when you consider that patients have rights that include privacy about their medical issues, be they asthma or mental health issues. Would you advocate taking away that right to privacy? Because doing so would only ensure that fewer people seek treatment.

Well, my bias is that I'm Australian and think the Australian gun control system could and should work in America.

Paraphrased from what I said in another comment:
Within months of the 1996 Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania, in which a single gunman killed 35 people and injured 23, the conservative government of the time used reaction to the tragedy to raise gun control as a political issue and initiated tighter restrictions on gun ownership and a mass gun buyback scheme. This was very unpopular with a lot of the Howard government's voters at the time and in general in opposition to conservative political ideology, but they pushd it through anyway because they thought it was the right thing to do. There haven't been any mass shooting incidents in Australia since, and homicides and suicides by gun have dramatically decreased (without an increase in death by other methods).

In summary: I'm not looking to take away a patient's right to privacy, I'm looking to take away their right to guns. Lol.

In response to your question, specifically this part: "[conducting checks on the mental health history of potential gun buyers' would only ensure that fewer people seek treatment.", I would appreciate it if you could give me some evidence that that is what happens when countries enforce stricter access to guns. Also, if and how they do do mental health checks, and how much of a breach of a patient's privacy that actually entails. Since I did give you a well publicised example supporting my stance on the issue.

In a general sense, I don't see how it would ensure few people seek treatment for mental health issues - I can see only a very few people thinking to themselves "I really, really need to see a psych for my issues, because existence is becoming unbearable. But, you know, I'd better not because at some point in my life I might want to buy a gun." Like, that doesn't seem like a very likely thought process to me at all.

OK, no. My point was that if you dilute a patient's right to privacy, the chances of someone seeking help would seem, to me, to decrease. Because in the US there is a very real stigma against mental illness. It's not just about buying a gun. It's about keeping a job. It's about *getting* a job. It's about being harassed.

DA

And it's not just mental illness that has a stigma, and when you start making exceptions for whose medical records and what types of medical records should be made available for things everyone has a right to (unless their personal actions/choices forfeited that right), it opens a door that not a lot of people are going to be willing to walk through.

Gun Control Anon (for lack of a better name)

What I originally said what that gun control was the first step to stopping gun related violence, and proposed Australia's system as a model. What I might not have made clear is that Australia has strict gun ownership restrictions for everyone, not just people with a mental illness.

You may read a brief summary about Australia's gun laws here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia#Australian_firearm_laws
But the major points basically boil down to having to have prove a genuine, specific reason for owning a specific gun, having to store it safely, having undergo firearms training, and include having to apply for a license that you have to renew and update, and probationary period as well.

In terms of licenses and 'breaches of privacy', here is an example NSW gun license application form:
http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/file/0016/256021/SAMPLE_P561_September_2013.pdf

This is would be the most relevant section to this discussion, me thinks:
H. PERSONAL HISTORY - You MUST complete this section - Mark an 'X' in one box for each question
Have you in NSW or elsewhere;
a) Been refused or prohibited from holding a firearms licence or permit or had a firearms licence or permit suspended, cancelled or revoked?
b) Are you currently subject to a Good Behaviour Bond for an offence referred to in question e) or an Interim Apprehended Violence Order?
c) Been, or are presently, subject to a firearms/weapons prohibition order, other than an order that has been revoked?
d) Have you ever attempted suicide or self harm, or in the past 12 months been referred or treated for alcoholism, drug dependence, or a mental or nervous disorder or illness?
e) Within the last 10 years, been convicted of an offence involving firearms or weapons, prohibited drugs/plants, fraud/dishonesty/stealing, prescribed restricted substances, terrorism, violence, robbery, organised criminal groups and recruitment, or an offence of a sexual nature?
f) Within the last 10 years been the subject of a Apprehended Violence Order (other than an order which was revoked) or an injunction ordered by the Family Court?

And the police then do a background check to check your declaration is correct. Just like, say, if you were applying to work with children, or in any number of other jobs where questions like these would be relevant, and you needed to undergo a police check.

I am sure that there are many, many jobs or other situation in America where you would be required to fill out similar forms. I do not see how such a declaration when applying for a gun license somehow opens a door that not a lot of people are going to be willing to walk through. But feel free to prove me wrong.

da

But that's the thing-- there already is a background check like that in the US. The issue is that mental health problems will not show up on it unless you were committed to a mental hospital. Privacy laws prevent the police from obtaining any information on whether you are being treated for any mental disorder and what that disorder is.

The background check itself isn't the issue, the privacy laws are.

AYRT

My impression was that the difficulty of getting a gun varied quite a bit between states in the US, with it being a lot easier in some places than others, and that the background check was not necessarily thorough. Apologies if this is a wrong impression.

As well, I am not quite sure what the difference between patient privacy laws that the police can access is between Australia and America. I can't think of any reason why they'd be different, though.

I do know that no privacy laws were changed when Australia enacted stricter gun control, so maybe we've actually been talking at cross purposes? I don't think the privacy of patients' with mental illnesses (or anyone else) should be violated in the name of gun control any further than a standard police check.

I do think that stricter restrictions for owning an using a gun in Australia have prevented a lot of gun-related violence with negligible harm to Australians. You wouldn't need to breach anyone's medical privacy if only people with specific, good reasons to own guns owned guns, and were forced to keep them safely, undergo firearms training and renew their license regularly, across the board, because it would become much more difficult for dangerous people to access guns.

ayrt

Some states have stricter regulations than others, but there is a national background check that is required in all states. Where I live, for example, the ownership of guns is very regulated. In addition to the background check, you either must undergo an online safety training course (and provide proof by turning in a certificate that you can only get once the course has been completed) or provide proof that you have other firearms training, you must take a written test about firearms safety and my state's firearms laws, and be fingerprinted. Your registration must also be renewed every three years. Other states are a lot more lax.

Honestly, (and I say this as someone who has a mental illness and is being treated for it), I have no problems with the police having access to that information. There are perfectly valid reasons for them to want to know about something like that outside of just gun safety - for instance, if they arrest someone who is behaving in a violent and erratic manner, it would be in the best interests of that person if the police had a way of knowing that they were mentally ill rather than just a belligerent drunk or high or whatever, as something like that would completely change (or at least SHOULD change) how that person was treated. It could do a lot to help patients rather than harm them.

Good to know!

As someone who has been diagnosed with a mental illness and was medicated for it, I don't particularly mind the idea of the police having access to that information either. However, I personally am more on the side of restricting access to guns rather than more extensive background checks (you might have noticed, lol), since I think the problem of gun violence extends beyond mass shootings carried by people who are mentally ill. But, you know, each to his own.

But your idea - maybe in the form of a notification you could opt to have, like the ID that diabetics or epileptics have - is interesting.

AYRT

And I am asking you to point out an example where tighter restrictions on access to guns and created a flow-through effect that has meant fewer people sought help for mental illness. Because, believe me, the US isn't the only place in the world where there is a stigma against mental illness. In fact, I can't really think of any country that doesn't have a stigma against mental illness of some sort, and I think the levels of stigma would be quite similar amongst English speaking countries.

Also, I replaced your 'breaching a patient's privacy' with 'conducting mental health history checks' because that seemed to be the most likely thing you meant by your general statement. But now I don't know whether you meant that at all.

So yeah, come back with a specific example of a hypothetical breach of privacy in regard to this issue (like, say, an actual gun restriction system that the US could possibly model itself on) and some kind of evidence that supports your theory that this will cause people to not seek help for their mental problems and/or not get jobs and whatever else you think the effects might be, and we can talk.

Sorry, I'm not interested in having a scholarly debate with you. If casual conversation isn't enough for you, look elsewhere. But, as far as I know, you can't do "mental health checks" WITHOUT breaching somebody's privacy.

If I want to buy a rifle or a shotgun, it's nobody's fucking business if I go to therapy that could be for an eating disorder or it could be because I'm crazy as fuck, which is why tying gun ownership to a mental health check doesn't fly here.

Okay, that's cool. I just think it's important to be able to support your opinions on an issue with evidence, if your opinion is one a lot of people use to argue against an issue as big and important as gun control laws. Also to know exactly what and how the rights you are talking about are being breached, and whether the proposal is actually as egregious as you think.

I know you're not interested in continuing the debate, but just because I happened to look it up for my reply to another anon, these are the types of personal questions that are asked when you apply for a gun license in Australia (in this case, in NSW), with the section relevant to mental health bolded. FYI.

H. PERSONAL HISTORY - You MUST complete this section - Mark an 'X' in one box for each question
Have you in NSW or elsewhere;
a) Been refused or prohibited from holding a firearms licence or permit or had a firearms licence or permit suspended, cancelled or revoked?
b) Are you currently subject to a Good Behaviour Bond for an offence referred to in question e) or an Interim Apprehended Violence Order?
c) Been, or are presently, subject to a firearms/weapons prohibition order, other than an order that has been revoked?
d) Have you ever attempted suicide or self harm, or in the past 12 months been referred or treated for alcoholism, drug dependence, or a mental or nervous disorder or illness?
e) Within the last 10 years, been convicted of an offence involving firearms or weapons, prohibited drugs/plants, fraud/dishonesty/stealing, prescribed restricted substances, terrorism, violence, robbery, organised criminal groups and recruitment, or an offence of a sexual nature?
f) Within the last 10 years been the subject of a Apprehended Violence Order (other than an order which was revoked) or an injunction ordered by the Family Court?

Your declaration on these questions is then checked by the police, and your license is either granted or denied.

You may think that these questions are a step too far and breach of a potential gun owner's privacy. I personally do not.

The part where there's a huge black market for guns that would be nearly impossible to completely monitor?

I mean there are already laws in place stopping people who aren't licensed from having guns, and that includes criminals and mentally unstable people. Most of the guns people have used in recent shootings were not legally obtained.

DA

Yup. This is what I was thinking.

To me it seems to be a very complex issue which needs a multipronged attack.
On the other hand, there seems to be a lot of talk (intelligent talk but nonetheless) and not enough action.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #2716 ]

Respectfully, No.

Re: Respectfully, No.

Re: Respectfully, No.

Re: Respectfully, No.

Re: Respectfully, No.

Re: Respectfully, No.

Re: Respectfully, No.

Re: Respectfully, No.

Re: Respectfully, No.

Re: Respectfully, No.

Re: Respectfully, No.

Re: Respectfully, No.

Re: Respectfully, No.

Re: Respectfully, No.

Re: Respectfully, No.

Re: Respectfully, No.

Re: Respectfully, No.