[ SECRET POST #2716 ]

[case]

⌈ 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.

Comments

Re: Respectfully, No.

[(Anonymous)]

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.

Re: Respectfully, No.

[(Anonymous)]

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.

Re: Respectfully, No.

[(Anonymous)]

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.

Re: Respectfully, No.

[(Anonymous)]

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.