Federal Mental Health Database needed
If this happens I predict a rise in gun crime as people who have issues but are functional find themselves unable to get a job or a loan.
April 20th, 2007 5:57am
The AP writer is calling it a loophole. I wonder where he got the term from. They're not loopholes, they're called not fucking with people's fucking right to privacy. Being treated for a mental health condition should not be included in a background check.
Maybe, MAYBE involuntary commitment should, but I'm on the fence there.
April 20th, 2007 6:59am
All of this hoo-hah is ridiculous. There are millions of people with mental health issues. A teeny-weeny fraction of a fraction of them become mass murderers. And some mass murderers were never treated nor diagnosed for any mental condition.
So why do we think that somehow we can root out the one nutjob in a zillion who's going to lose it and start killing people?
We lose so many more people to easily preventable things, that it's insane to apportion resources to try and head off the occasional lunatic.
If this happened once a week, then I'd say we had a problem. But a couple of times a year? No.
April 20th, 2007 7:08am
Well that's true, but do you expect Americans to think of issues IN CONTEXT?!
April 20th, 2007 7:25am
Who has time to think? We've got inflammatory news programs to watch 24 hours a day. And they tell us THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT. So keep your telescreens tuned in.
April 20th, 2007 7:57am
> A teeny-weeny fraction of a fraction of them become mass murderers.
Some even become president.
son of parnas
April 20th, 2007 12:55pm
On the loophole thing, this is a tactic used by lawmakers to pass stuff that would never be passed. They pass a bunch of stuff to take care of 'edge cases', like, if you are actually committed to an insane asylum, you go in a registry. No one complains about that preexisting law. Then one day, it's announced that not also registering all the non-extreme cases is a 'loophole', that way it just sounds like a minor 'correction' to a preexisting law, the debate with which is finished and therefore can not be brought up again. So, if you complain about this, lawmakers say 'hey, everybody already decided we want this, it's just there's this small loophole that was forgotten and we're patching it up. You don't want more tragedies to happen now do you? No, I didn't think so! Well closing this loophole stops that from happening!"
April 20th, 2007 2:04pm
I guess the technical debate term is 'framing the debate'. By framing the debate as a 'woops, our bad, lets close that small loophole' case instead of a 'thoughtpolice will now use this tragedy to strip away all that is left of your medical privacy with an insane and repressive law' case, then the debate is settled before it has started.
April 20th, 2007 2:08pm
Fortunately if it is a loophole involving states/fed, the states may actually be able to decide to keep it in place.
April 20th, 2007 4:13pm