Should Mental Health Evaluation be required for Gun Purchases?
 

When my wife and I decided it was time to have a vasectomy back in the 70's, I was required to have an evaluation from a physiatrist at Fort Belvoir, Virginia before the operation could be performed. The reason given was I had to be emotionally and mentally stable enough to make that decision.

Perhaps, it would be a good idea to require that same evaluation to determine emotional and mental stability prior to the purchase of a weapon.

Great thought. I could not agree more. :smiley:

:BigApplause: :BigApplause: :BigApplause:

As good of an idea as this may be, our mental health system is so stressed at this point I can't imagine how this could possibly be done. Besides it's too easy to fool someone into believing you are fine when you are not.

I guess you could also require an evaluation for many things. Are you emotionally stable to drive a car. drive a boat, have children, buy propane, buy gasoline, be out in public with out an escort. As tragic as sometime things are trying to having government involved in most things usually never works out the way it was intended. Is the problem the item or the society we now live in?

Requiring a psych evaluation before buying a gun would just not be feasible.

However, I do think that the military should do psych evaluations immediately on every soldier who returns to the US from a foreign tour of duty. It may catch warning signs of PTSD or other problems.

Statistically, the mentally ill are usually the victims of crimes and not the perpetrators. http://mentalillnesspolicy.org/conse...imization.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0225101639.htm

If there were indicators about who might go on a shooting spree, then I would be for evaluations to stop such actions. Life is never that simple though nor, of course, is the human mind.

This is not a requirement in civilian life. So I kind of think it negates your other thought.

Z

I will make it easer to understand.

Please read this and disregard my personal experience.



Perhaps, it would be a good idea to require a psychiatric evaluation to determine emotional and mental stability prior to the purchase of a weapon.

It seems like a good idea. But be careful what you wish for.

If the government were to become the single-payer of all healthcare services, and has every psychiatrist and psychologist session notes and prescriptions in their electronic medical records database, it can be misused to deem political opponents and dissidents as "mentally unfit" to do many things, like getting and keeping a job and owning a firearm.

Or, with the IRS having the stronghold on everyone, an opponent could be determined "mentally unfit" because they owe back-taxes or any number of things.

I think we should maintain a certain level of distrust for government because the majority in power changes, and those in power can change to those you do not like or trust at all.

I am concerned about what is happening far to often now, killing in mass by mentally ill Americans that in too many cases bought the weapon in the last few days. Not a conspiracy theory that MAY happen someday in the far fetched future.

Agree fully. Regardless of the benefits, given the current lack of trust in the government, no one in their right mind would give this kind of power to the Feds. The recent political investigations and outright falsehoods told by those in power about the new health care law are cases in point.

I love America just the way it is.

I love it the way it was.

Sorry to see you longer love it. I am retired military and very patriotic, so that may be why I still think this country is doing just fine.

sticking to the question of the thread.....NO!
Impossible to define/develop criteria to measure with.
Impossible for lawmakers to reach agreement on what the measurements could be.
Virtually impossible to administer/enforce with any degree of effectiveness

The most readily available gun control actions are to enforce the laws already on the books.

The military base issue is an easy one to solve if it isn't made a platform for anti-gunners again......just go back to the rules of military being able to be armed on base as it was for many years. The current criteria have only created another gun free zone providing easy pickings for those who do not follow the rules......as proven time and time again.

I think most of us love the country, but not how its bureaucracies grow bigger and bigger, while being less and less accountable to constituents:

"The Department of Veterans Affairs' promise to end by 2015 its massive, benefits backlog for disabled veterans has "stalled," according to an analysis released Monday by a leading veterans' organization.

After slicing its glut of pending claims from a peak of 600,000 cases in March 2013 to 400,000 in November, the VA has been unable to budge below that threshold this year, according to "The Red Tape Report," authored by the group Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.

Consequently, hundreds of thousands of veterans who were permanently disabled or made ill by their military service are waiting months for their compensation checks to arrive to help pay bills and, in some cases, to buy food. Some of those veterans are physically unable to hold jobs....

...In addition to those 400,000 ex-service members with backlogged claims, another 265,000 veterans have filed appeals with the VA, asserting their disability benefits were erroneously denied or cut, the report states...."

VA backlog again gnarled in red tape, report claims - U.S. News

It has always happened. We just did not have so much media to sensationalize the event and encourage "copycats" all seeking to get their names memorialized on their way "out"!

Until YOU disclosed it, your medical experience was private and protected by federal privacy laws regarding medical treatment. The same is true of psychological evaluation or treatment.

The only question regarding mental illness on the federal gun purchase application form is whether not you have been adjudicated mentally defective or committed to a mental institution.

If you have not been adjudicated or committed you cannot be prevented from buying a gun, so a simple "evaluation" would be insufficient

Other posters have given a long list of very valid reasons showing that your suggestion is impractical.

Besides which, a recent Gallup poll discloses that 60% of all Americans already own guns.

Pew Research claims that only 37% of households have guns, but estimates there are 270 million to 310 million guns in the United States.

Some ideas sound good, but are impractical. Your suggestion is impractical.

.

Box cutters killed more people in one day then all the guns did.

In what time period were soldiers on US bases allowed to be armed? I was in the Army in 1966 in the US at Fort Jackson and at Fort Benning. All firearms were kept double-locked in the Arms Room. That also went for privately owned firearms. MPs were armed and still are armed.

What are feelings about soldiers returning to US from overseas tours having psych evals to detect warning signs of PTSD or other mental issues?

Impractical
 

Impractical and ineffective.

Reportedly, the shooter at Ft. Hood had self-reported that he had PTSD and the Army hadn't even gotten through evaluating him.

How long does it take?

How much more difficult would it be to complete the evaluation of a returning trooper who denies PTSD?

Not enough psychologists and too many returning troops.

In addition, we have thousands of civilian contractors in combat zones providing security for the troops who are also exposed to PTSD conditions. Who would evaluate them?

.

Y'all have better solutions than I can think of, so I will leave this topic to those of you better equipped to come up with the answer. In the interim, I will be cleaning my guns and spending as much tine on the range as I can afford.

Lou

Why not require a competency test before being allowed to vote, or take an infant home from the hospital? Not saying I disagree, just reminding that similar things have been tried (and decried!).

I love it the way it should be.

Your posting does not correctly reflect the way health care coverage operates. A single payer system, such as Medicare, means that the rules, formularies, coverages, exclusions, etc. would be the same for all of us. The payer then pays the provider for covered services in a uniform and predictable manner. The payer does NOT provide the medical record nor have access to the medical record without the consent of the patient. The only part of the medical record which might be made available would be that pertinent to paying for a claim to see if the doctor or hospital actually did perform the service for which the carrier is being billed or to see if the patient's illness justifies a requested medication or intervention. If you believe that seeing a doctor who operates under a government run health care is a risk to your privacy, then don't use your Medicare insurance. If you like Medicare, you like government run health care, plain and simple.

This is an excellent post! :agree:

You're talking about Medicare up until now, but I'm talking about the system in the future, with the huge, octopus involvement of the IRS and its involvement and knowlege of our medical records, as sanctioned by the ACA.

Add to that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms granted their tentacles access to citizens' medical records, and it is gargantuan.

Interesting question!
I don't know if it would be able to be done.

We have a case here in Tampa of a Mom with a long history of mental illness was able to buy a gun and shot and killed her 2 children.
We could start, at least, with anyone who has a history is not eligible to
Buy a gun.
Her trial starts this month. Very sad story.

That's interesting. A careful assessment of why various patients have had to be adjudicated mentally ill would have to be taken into this. My initial assessment though would be that most people Baker Acted here in Florida and then adjudicated as mentally ill are probably people with alcohol, drug, or other addictions. And, most of these probably would never become violent unless they come from an environment of domestic violence or so other kind of cyclical violence.

Take media cases involving mothers who murder kids-- most mothers never have any problem with post partum depression leading to violence. There are the rare exceptions.

The media cover the extreme cases of mental illness pushing someone to violence. They rarely cover though just how many people in the US suffer from some kind of mental illness. It is one in four the last I looked. http://www.nami.org/template.cfm?section=About_NAMI

http://www.nami.org/factsheets/menta..._factsheet.pdf

Someone with mental illness cannot legally purchase a gun. There is a specific question on the purchase application.

A check is made to determine if that individual has been in a mental health facility in that specific state. However states do not share that information or provide it to a central data base where it could be checked.

An individual could also falsely respond to that question.

One of the goals of the Feds requiring docs and facilities to use electronic medical records is the creation of a government controlled central medical record database. Hospitals had to have an EMR in place by 2013 or face reimbursement decreases. Docs must also meet an approaching deadline. This is not just Medicare, but an over-reaching action.

You should read the law that N. Pelosi said had to be passed before you could know what was in it.

as long as we continue to operate this country and allow special interests to over rule the real needs required to keep this nation safe(r), there will be no progress.

There is far too much focus on whether an implementation or an enforcement will or might offend SOMEBODY! As a result nothing gets done....and those laws already on the books are not enforced all in the name of a FALSE EQUALITY.

Until that changes don't expect much different than we get.

I believe that the various State and Federal statutes say that someone adjudicated to be mentally ill not that someone has had a mental illness cannot purchase a firearm and this does not cover most gun shows as far as I know. Again, people should look at the National Alliance on Mental Illness before posting generalities. http://www.nami.org/template.cfm?section=About_NAMI

I did not post a generality. You should check various state and federal laws.

I have. Look again about who may purchase a firearm.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-a...tally-ill.aspx

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/.../0790.065.html

All federal, state, and local gun laws apply to gun shows the same as firearm purchases any other place. Actually, in some states, it is more difficult to buy a firearm at a gun show than outside of a gun show. The so-called "Gun show loophole" is a myth and always has been.

Are you kidding me? Obviously you do not believe in the Second Amendment.
Anyone can buy a gun at any time. Get real.

That probably depends on whom you talk to about this issue. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/11/us...ecks.html?_r=0

Personally, I would look for the least biased sources of information for the "gun show loophole". http://www.governing.com/gov-data/sa...-laws-map.html

Please read the website that you linked. It clearly states that they consider the "gun show loophole" to be transactions between individuals (Non Federal Firearm License (FFL) holders). When purchasing from an FFL holder, an individual goes through the same background checks, waiting periods, etc, whether the purchase is at a gun show or not. When purchasing from a private seller (Non FFL holder), the transaction is conducted exactly the same, whether the purchase is at a gun show or not. As I said previously, there is not and never has been a gun show loophole that allows an individual to purchase a firearm at a gun show to circumvent the law. Recently, many states have banned sales by private sellers at gun shows. In these cases, even though a private seller may have a table or booth with a few firearms he is trying to sell, the firearm is technically purchased by an FFL holder who then sells it to the buyer, usually for a $20-30 fee. In most states, an individual may still sell a firearm to another individual or pass it down to their children or grandchildren without a background check.

No
 

Mental exams should be for ones who don't carry arms or try to outlaw them.:wave: