Should you lose your gun rights if you visit a shrink?

[Agravan]

HAMMOND: Should you lose your gun rights if you visit a shrink?

Citing ‘mental health,’ White House defies patient-privacy rule




By Michael E. Hammond
Tuesday, January 7, 2014

http://media.washtimes.com/media/image/2014/01/07/1_7_2014_b1hammondlgguns8201_s160x147.jpg?d4f96aa2 aea4e28fd892c8f67f3def2dc9d28a53 (http://www.washingtontimes.com/multimedia/image/1_7_2014_b1hammondlgguns8201jpg/)


In a preternatural example of tone-deafness, an administration under fire for snooping into Americans’ privacy is now proposing to waive federal privacy laws so psychiatrists can report their gun-owning patients to the government.
The Department of Health (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/department-of-health/) and Human Service (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/human-service/)’s “notice of proposed rule-making,” floated by the White House (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/white-house/) in a Friday media dump, would waive portions of the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) to allow psychiatrists to report their patients to the FBI (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/federal-bureau-of-investigation/)’s gun-ban blacklist (the NICS system) on the basis of confidential communications.

The 1968 Gun Control Act bans guns for anyone who is “adjudicated as a mental defective or … committed to a mental institution.” Unfortunately, under 2008 NICS Improvement Act, drafted by Sen. Charles E. Schumer (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/charles-e-schumer/), New York Democrat, and its regulations, that “adjudication” can be made by any “other lawful authority.” This means a diagnosis by a single psychiatrist in connection with a government program.




Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/7/hammond-see-a-shrink-lose-your-weapon/#ixzz2q2mR3hTB

[Peter1469]

How does your shrink know that you have a firearm?

[jillian]

is anyone suggesting that people be divested of their guns if they "visit a shrink"?

didn't think so.

[roadmaster]

HAMMOND: Should you lose your gun rights if you visit a shrink?

Citing ‘mental health,’ White House defies patient-privacy rule

They want to take guns out of the ex military. Some of them are asked to do this when they get home.

[jillian]

They want to take guns out of the ex military. Some of them are asked to do this when they get home.

first of all, the source doesn't have a drop of credibility.

that said… they're finding a lot of problems, including hugely high suicide rates, among former military.

but that wasn't the o/p, was it? the o/p opined that a "visit" to one's shrink would result in gun loss.

no one has ever suggested that.

[Ransom]

Maybe lose your gun rights if you attend a Democrat political convention. We know liberalism teaches victimization and the you got the short end of the stick philosophy, many of these shooters with that thought process.

just kidding

[fyrenza]

In a word : NO.

[Max Rockatansky]

What do Jared Loughner and James Holmes have in common? Both had been seen by psychiatrists and considered unstable and dangerous.

Although the mechanism described in the OP wouldn't work for several reasons, there is good reason to have a mechanism in place to allow psychiatrists with dangerous patients to break the doctor-patient confidentiality barrier in this case. The mechanism doesn't have to say why and have to be constantly reviewed. Background checks would only show a person's name on a list, not why, to gun dealers. The patient would know within 48 hours that they are on a list temporarily and how they can either contest it and the consequences. Such a mechanism would have to be temporary, constantly reviewed and geared to restoration of a person's Constitutional rights.

[donttread]

That is a horrible idea and will cause people not to seek help or not to fully open up when they do. The vast majority of persons with mental illness are as safe with a firearm as anyone else




HAMMOND: Should you lose your gun rights if you visit a shrink?

Citing ‘mental health,’ White House defies patient-privacy rule




By Michael E. Hammond
Tuesday, January 7, 2014

http://media.washtimes.com/media/image/2014/01/07/1_7_2014_b1hammondlgguns8201_s160x147.jpg?d4f96aa2 aea4e28fd892c8f67f3def2dc9d28a53 (http://www.washingtontimes.com/multimedia/image/1_7_2014_b1hammondlgguns8201jpg/)

In a preternatural example of tone-deafness, an administration under fire for snooping into Americans’ privacy is now proposing to waive federal privacy laws so psychiatrists can report their gun-owning patients to the government.
The Department of Health (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/department-of-health/) and Human Service (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/human-service/)’s “notice of proposed rule-making,” floated by the White House (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/white-house/) in a Friday media dump, would waive portions of the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) to allow psychiatrists to report their patients to the FBI (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/federal-bureau-of-investigation/)’s gun-ban blacklist (the NICS system) on the basis of confidential communications.

The 1968 Gun Control Act bans guns for anyone who is “adjudicated as a mental defective or … committed to a mental institution.” Unfortunately, under 2008 NICS Improvement Act, drafted by Sen. Charles E. Schumer (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/charles-e-schumer/), New York Democrat, and its regulations, that “adjudication” can be made by any “other lawful authority.” This means a diagnosis by a single psychiatrist in connection with a government program.




Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/7/hammond-see-a-shrink-lose-your-weapon/#ixzz2q2mR3hTB

[Mr Happy]

Depends on why you're visiting the shrink. Wife and kids giving you a hard time? Job boring you? No problem. Having dreams of going to the nearest school with a TEC-10 and opening up on the faculty and students? Yeah, might be a good idea to take your guns.

[Max Rockatansky]

That is a horrible idea and will cause people not to seek help or not to fully open up when they do. The vast majority of persons with mental illness are as safe with a firearm as anyone else

Only those who are deemed homicidally dangerous should be subject to being put on such a list and even then, the above listed restrictions would apply.

[Max Rockatansky]

Depends on why you're visiting the shrink. Wife and kids giving you a hard time? Job boring you? No problem. Having dreams of going to the nearest school with a TEC-10 and opening up on the faculty and students? Yeah, might be a good idea to take your guns.

Which brings up another point. It's one thing to be point on a list so a person can't buy a semi-automatic rifle and 1000 rounds of ammo on their way to school, but what about those who already have guns? This is a temporary measure and their property needs to be both protected, returned or compensated for if this turns into a permanent issue.

[fyrenza]

I have Mr. LD on the Ignorant List, but saw his ignorant post in your quote :

DREAMS are our outlet for the stresses that we feel during our conscious/waking times,

and my GOD,

WTF would sic freakin' DREAM POLICE on folks???

Oh! That's right. My bad.

[Max Rockatansky]

LOL. Well, if we're convicted for our thoughts, then the world will soon be all prisoners and no guards.

Shrinks know the difference between a bad dream and a homicidal urge. I think the bar would have to be set high on depriving, even temporarily, a person's Constitutional rights with all kinds of mechanisms for a return of those rights.

While I'm sure the anti-gun crowd is drooling over this, they should be as concerned as Second Amendment supporters about losing rights. If a mechanism is in place to deprive a person of one Constitutional right, then why not all of them? Look at the tree-hugger anti-nuke nuts hanging around military bases. Some are dangerous. Why not deprive them of their First Amendment rights....temporarily, of course. What about the PETA nuts who throw blood on people wearing leather or fur? That's a violent attack! Shouldn't they be deprived of their First Amendment rights also while seeing a shrink about their violent tendencies?

This action is plagued with land-mines and should be entered into with the utmost caution.

[Chris]

is anyone suggesting that people be divested of their guns if they "visit a shrink"?

didn't think so.


first of all, the source doesn't have a drop of credibility.

that said… they're finding a lot of problems, including hugely high suicide rates, among former military.

but that wasn't the o/p, was it? the o/p opined that a "visit" to one's shrink would result in gun loss.

no one has ever suggested that.



Actually the OP reported facts like the following:


The 1968 Gun Control Act bans guns for anyone who is “adjudicated as a mental defective or … committed to a mental institution.” Unfortunately, under 2008 NICS Improvement Act, drafted by Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, and its regulations, that “adjudication” can be made by any “other lawful authority.” This means a diagnosis by a single psychiatrist in connection with a government program.

Right in front of your eyes. You're losing your credibility with such ad hom BS.

[Chris]

Depends on why you're visiting the shrink. Wife and kids giving you a hard time? Job boring you? No problem. Having dreams of going to the nearest school with a TEC-10 and opening up on the faculty and students? Yeah, might be a good idea to take your guns.


I posted a psychological study a couple weeks ago that said there's no known connection.

[Common]

That is a horrible idea and will cause people not to seek help or not to fully open up when they do. The vast majority of persons with mental illness are as safe with a firearm as anyone else

What the hell do you base that statement on

[The Xl]

No, absolutely not, and I think that's the goal of gun control supporting liberals, unfortunately.

[Libhater]

PTSD is considered to be a mental disorder as deemed by the psychiatric world at the VA. I can just imagine seeing Obama's attorney general going after all of the thousands of PTSD inflicted gun-owning veterans by telling them we're snubbing all of your second Amendment rights in lieu of our concern for societal safety.

[patrickt]

is anyone suggesting that people be divested of their guns if they "visit a shrink"?

didn't think so.

And the government wants to change the doctor/patient privilege rule so psychiatrists and psychologists will be required to name their patients who admit owning a gun just for fun? And the next step would be to have the doctors notify the state of all patients who could then be checked against lists of people who have bought guns or even ammunition.

Jillian, doesn't think, though.

QUOTE:
Jillian: "first of all, the source doesn't have a drop of credibility.

that said… they're finding a lot of problems, including hugely high suicide rates, among former military.

but that wasn't the o/p, was it? the o/p opined that a "visit" to one's shrink would result in gun loss.

no one has ever suggested that."

Jillian's nonsense gets so tiresome. Someone who is loathe to post any citation and isn't above using the Huffington Post, New York Times, and Daily Kos continually sticks her pointy nose in the air and says, with no citation, "that source doesn't have a shred of credibility:.

And then Jillian maligns everyone who has served by saying, "they're finding a lot of problems, including hugely high suicide rates, among former military." Wow, lot's of unnamed problems and no citation, of course, and the suicide rates isn't just high, no, in Jillian's emotional demagogue it's HUGELY high. Bullshit. I can understand a soldier coming home to Obama's Regime being depressed and despondent. Cut military pensions and give money to illegal aliens, that's what they come home to.

And, no one has suggested the government will take your guns. No, but every single time the government changes the rules to fuck us over they follow by doing it. When President Obama changed the rules so the NSA could eavesdrop on all of us, what happened? Ooopsie.

We've just seen a sad display of liberals using the bodies of children to beat their drum for disarming the enemies of socialism with new legislation. Few of the laws got passed and it isn't going well so it's no surprise they're looking for another way to disarm Americans.

It's also no surprise that Jillian would defend this latest move by the leftists.

[sotmfs]

I would never visit a shrink.If I did visit one,I definitely would not reveal any information about myself other than my name.I would be crazy to do otherwise.

[Max Rockatansky]

And they government wants to change the doctor/patient privilege rule so psychiatrists and psychologists will be required to name their patients who admit owning a gun just for fun?

No. Where did you read that? Even if that were true, it would drastically backfire because patients who have minor personal issues wouldn't seek the help they need for fear of losing their Constitutional rights.

As the article states, Americans are losing their Constitutional rights already, including 175,000 Veterans because the present laws are incomplete. There is no mechanism for returning their guns. This is wrong. We have a problem in this country of dangerously mentally ill Americans and Felons having easy access to firearms and ammunition. We also have a problem with Americans losing their Constitutional rights and never seeing those rights returned.


In the case of nearly 175,000 law-abiding veterans, the “lawful authority” has been a Department of Veterans Affairs psychiatrist, who, generally, will take away a veteran’s guns by unilaterally declaring him incompetent and appointing a guardian over his financial affairs. Certainly, the findings can be appealed, but most veterans don’t have the tens of thousands of dollars to hire lawyers and psychiatrists to do so.

Although the problem hasn’t yet been as apparent in other areas, police and firemen on Social Security disability for post-traumatic stress disorder, Medicare seniors with Alzheimer’s, and people who as children were diagnosed under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act program with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder will ultimately face the same fate. Even a subsidized Obamacare policy might now make Americans participants in a federal program.
In fact, that process of expanding gun bans has now begun:


One gun owner in a virulently anti-gun state was placed on the gun-ban blacklist because many years ago, police, without the approval of any court, put him in a mental facility overnight. The facility found nothing wrong with him, but that didn’t stop his state from recently turning him in to the FBI for a lifetime gun ban.
In another case, a gun owner in an anti-gun state lost his guns because of a prescription for a psychiatric drug.
Will imposing gun bans on Americans who seek counseling “keep us safe”?




Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/7/hammond-see-a-shrink-lose-your-weapon/#ixzz2q5paf7Qy

[Max Rockatansky]

I would never visit a shrink.If I did visit one,I definitely would not reveal any information about myself other than my name.I would be crazy to do otherwise.

LOL. Which is also part of the problem.

The anti-gun folks often trot out the number "30,000 Americans died from gun violence each year!!!" without also mentioning that over half of those deaths were suicide. The problem of suicide among vets is a national problem because it was this nation that caused the problem. Depriving those vets of their Constitutional rights is simply adding another wrong to what this nation has already done to them.

I do not believe a person should lose their Constitutional rights because they are suicidal, only if they are deemed homicidally dangerous to others. While one psychiatrist can put a patient on that list, it should take constant reviews by other psychiatrists to keep them on that list. It should be difficult to deprive a person of their rights.

[jillian]

LOL. Which is also part of the problem.

The anti-gun folks often trot out the number "30,000 Americans died from gun violence each year!!!" without also mentioning that over half of those deaths were suicide. The problem of suicide among vets is a national problem because it was this nation that caused the problem. Depriving those vets of their Constitutional rights is simply adding another wrong to what this nation has already done to them.

I do not believe a person should lose their Constitutional rights because they are suicidal, only if they are deemed homicidally dangerous to others. While one psychiatrist can put a patient on that list, it should take constant reviews by other psychiatrists to keep them on that list. It should be difficult to deprive a person of their rights.

there is often a correlation between being suicidal and homicidal. and the legal standard is whether one is a danger to themselves or others.

[Max Rockatansky]

there is often a correlation between being suicidal and homicidal. and the legal standard is whether one is a danger to themselves or others.

Yes, the correlation is that someone can end up dead. The difference is that consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they like with their own bodies as long as it doesn't harm others. This includes a right to suicide.

If you push that "the State" should intrude on what consenting adults do with their own bodies, I hope you see the danger in that course of action.

[jillian]

Yes, the correlation is that someone can end up dead. The difference is that consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they like with their own bodies as long as it doesn't harm others. This includes a right to suicide.

i have no problem with a right to suicide (although i personally think it is the ultimate act of selfishness).

the problem is that the psychology of someone who is suicidal and someone who is homicidal are almost impossible to separate as far as i know.

if they want to kill themselves they can find a way that isn't a gun.

interestingly, women who commit suicide don't generally use guns. men do.

[Max Rockatansky]

i have no problem with a right to suicide (although i personally think it is the ultimate act of selfishness).

the problem is that the psychology of someone who is suicidal and someone who is homicidal are almost impossible to separate as far as i know.

if they want to kill themselves they can find a way that isn't a gun.

interestingly, women who commit suicide don't generally use guns. men do.

Most people who commit suicide are depressed. Mentally ill. Certainly not egocentrically selfish. That's a myth.

Do you really want the penalty for someone who is depressed and in need of help to be "Okay, we'll help you but first we're going to deprive you of your Constitutional rights forever"?

Yes, psychologists can determine if a person is a danger to themselves, a danger to others or both. Sometimes it isn't clear cut which is why such measures should be both temporary, rectifiable and reviewed by other psychiatrists.

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/suicide-in-the-us-statistics-and-prevention/index.shtml
depression and other mental disorders, or a substance-abuse disorder (often in combination with other mental disorders). More than 90 percent of people who die by suicide have these risk factors.

[patrickt]

there is often a correlation between being suicidal and homicidal. and the legal standard is whether one is a danger to themselves or others.

And the authoritative source for this is...Jillian...again.

[jillian]

And the authoritative source for this is...Jillian...again.

i'm sorry you don't know anything.

do i need to link statements like people need good nutrition to be healthy as well for people like you?

for your edification:


Current research supports the notion that homicide and suicide are not unique behaviors characterized by distinctive brain anatomy and chemistry. It should be noted that homicide is the only crime that regularly results in the offenders taking their own life after committing the crime . Of the data collected on suicide victims and murderers, there are comparable deficiencies in the pre-frontal cortex and the serotonergic system. Mechanistically, the dysfunction of the prefrontal cortex in suicidal individuals and murderers is believed to be due to reduced levels of circulating serotonin

http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/4264/is-the-propensity-to-commit-homicide-and-suicide-related

now stop trolling every time you're afraid a discussion becomes interesting and no one is hurling insults.

[sotmfs]

When I was young,about 5 years old I saw a psychiatrist.My Mother brought me to one because I was afraid to go to sleep at night because I thought my Mother was going to die.
The shrink asked me why I thought that and I believe ,if I remember correctly,I said because she is old.I remember being asked to draw pictures of my Mother.I remember being told to go and play in a room with toys so I could be observed.

My Mother was about 26 years old at the time.She was not "old". Why did I think She was old? Because I overheard Her frequently voice Her concern about aging,getting old,being old,losing Her "looks",etc.I was 5,old people die and I hear my Mother saying she is old.

Obviously my Mother was not old and the shrink told me that and my Mother told me that in the doctor's office.Being 5,I could not express the fact that my Mother said different at home.Also,I was not an artist and felt weird drawing pictures of my Mother for this stranger.I also did not want to play in front of this guy so I stood and stared out the window.
My Mother did not associate Her concern about aging with my concern about Her dying.
The diagnosis :I am an introverted,insecure kid,that thinks His Mother is going to die for no valid reason.

Well ,I got over it,but my Mother never got over Her age thing.It turned into a "People don't believe how old I am,I look so much younger,etc.

But I have not gotten over my dislike and mistrust of psychiatrists and psychiatry.

[Max Rockatansky]

http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/4264/is-the-propensity-to-commit-homicide-and-suicide-related


It should be noted that homicide is the only crime that regularly results in the offenders taking their own life after committing the crime . Sometimes known as suicide-by-cop.

I'll accept that sometimes homicide leads to suicide, but I've never heard of suicide leading to homicide.

[jillian]

Sometimes known as suicide-by-cop.

I'll accept that sometimes homicide leads to suicide, but I've never heard of suicide leading to homicide.

that's funny. whenever i hear about someone killing others and then himself, i say he should have done it in reverse.

and it's not just suicide by cop… it's people like adam lanza who shot up the kids in sandy hook then shot himself. or the guy in new york who tossed his kid (i think he was 3) off the roof of a high rise and then jumped because he didn't get the divorce settlement he wanted.

[Max Rockatansky]

The diagnosis :I am an introverted,insecure kid,that thinks His Mother is going to die for no valid reason.

Well ,I got over it,but my Mother never got over Her age thing.It turned into a "People don't believe how old I am,I look so much younger,etc.

But I have not gotten over my dislike and mistrust of psychiatrists and psychiatry.
One instance half a century ago doesn't make a trend. Secondly, psychiatry has evolved in the last 5 decades. Thirdly, a diagnosis of "introverted,insecure kid" for a 5 year old should have just said "normally introverted, insecure kid".

[sotmfs]

One instance half a century ago doesn't make a trend. Secondly, psychiatry has evolved in the last 5 decades. Thirdly, a diagnosis of "introverted,insecure kid" for a 5 year old should have just said "normally introverted, insecure kid".

I know,but I am crazy!!

[Chris]

there is often a correlation between being suicidal and homicidal. and the legal standard is whether one is a danger to themselves or others.

Correlating homicide and suicide


Abstract

Background The relationship between homicide and suicide has been studied extensively, but with conflicting results. The primary objective of this study was to examine the correlation between homicide and suicide rates in a large cross-sectional sample of UN member states.

Methods The study used age-standardized data on homicide and suicide for 65 international locales compiled by the World Health Organization. Weighted correlation coefficients between homicide and suicide rates were computed by sex, income level, and geographic region.

Results The overall correlation between homicide and suicide rates was weak and statistically insignificant (ρ = −0.08, P = 0.5178). However, when analysed by geographic region the data revealed two distinct patterns: homicide and suicide rates were positively correlated in European countries (ρ = 0.89, P < 0.0001), but negatively correlated in the Asia Pacific Region (ρ = −0.97, P < 0.0001), and the Americas (ρ = −0.62, P < 0.005).

Conclusions The strength and direction of the relationship between homicide and suicide vary significantly with geographic region. The divergent geographic patterns in the relationship between homicide and suicide might be due to regional differences in social and cultural variables.

[Chris]

And the authoritative source for this is...Jillian...again.

Nonexistent.

[Max Rockatansky]

that's funny. whenever i hear about someone killing others and then himself, i say he should have done it in reverse.

and it's not just suicide by cop… it's people like adam lanza who shot up the kids in sandy hook then shot himself. or the guy in new york who tossed his kid (i think he was 3) off the roof of a high rise and then jumped because he didn't get the divorce settlement he wanted.

Both the Lanza case and Dmitriy Kanarikov's are indicative of how easily mentally ill people slip through the system. You should note that the murder-suicide of Dmitriy Kanarikov and his son Kirill has nothing to do with guns and depriving him of his Second Amendment rights would not have prevented the tragedy. The anti-gun folks should focus more on mental health and less about their fetish to ban the Second Amendment.

[jillian]

Both the Lanza case and Dmitriy Kanarikov's are indicative of how easily mentally ill people slip through the system. You should note that the murder-suicide of Dmitriy Kanarikov and his son Kirill has nothing to do with guns and depriving him of his Second Amendment rights would not have prevented the tragedy. The anti-gun folks should focus more on mental health and less about their fetish to ban the Second Amendment.

i agree that the kanarikov case wasn't gun-related. it was a continued discussion about the correlation between murder and suicide.

i have no problem if we address the mental health issues more effectively.

how does one do that and keep guns away from pertinent people?

the answer is background checks since you can't force people to either take meds or be treated if they're outpatient.

[Chris]

i'm sorry you don't know anything.

do i need to link statements like people need good nutrition to be healthy as well for people like you?

for your edification:



http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/4264/is-the-propensity-to-commit-homicide-and-suicide-related

now stop trolling every time you're afraid a discussion becomes interesting and no one is hurling insults.



You sure do like to cherry pick. You skipped right over this from your source:


Homicide and suicide seem to both be extreme behavior and possibly ways of coping with similar stresses such as rejection, betrayal, loss. They are both types of murder.

There had been a lot of inconclusive research trying to examine the correlation between murder and suicide, until this study Correlating homicide and suicide 1, cited below, in 2005.

The findings show that globally there are weak correlations between murder and suicide, however there were significant differences between geographical regions. This study shows the relationship between homicide and suicide within a community.

Your citation merely says similar brain areas and functions are involved, not that there's any significant correlation.

[Chris]

i agree that the kanarikov case wasn't gun-related. it was a continued discussion about the correlation between murder and suicide.

i have no problem if we address the mental health issues more effectively.

how does one do that and keep guns away from pertinent people?

the answer is background checks since you can't force people to either take meds or be treated if they're outpatient.



But nothing in psychology supports any correlation between psychological problems and violence. So what would background checks reveal? Nothing.

[Common]

I dont think anyone wants a true nutjob to have a gun, my question would be how do you stop it, answer is, you cant. You can stop a few via background checks but that doesnt mean they cant obtain an illegal weapon.

Despite the Nanny Bloombergs , you can buy any kind of gun you want in NYC, LA, Chicago and Philly and rural kentucky and WVirginia. Gotta get real liberals on this one, Guns are here to stay and if you make them illegal they will become just as prevalent as bootleg cigs from down south and Indian Cigarettes and Weed and Herioin and Cocaine that no one ever could stop.

Merely going to a psychiatrist should not be reason to ban gun ownership, People go to psyches for behavioral changes too like to lose weight or stop smoking via hypnosis and medication. Theres a variety of reasons people visit pysches without it being for mental instability.

However, I do agree if a psyche is seeing someone off the charts that he/she believes is a threat, reporting that individual is fine with me.

[Max Rockatansky]

how does one do that and keep guns away from pertinent people?

the answer is background checks since you can't force people to either take meds or be treated if they're outpatient.

That's the $64 question. The tricky part is the fact it's a Constitutional right. Depriving Americans of their Constitutional rights should be hard for several, and what should be obvious, reasons. The anti-gun advocates would be wise to remember that when they make it easy to deprive an American of their Second Amendment rights, they also make it easier to deprive Americans of all their Constitutional rights.

Background checks are great and I support them. What I don't support is to make background checks a backdoor to gun registration and tracking all gun-owners so some unscrupulous, Left-Wing newspaper than publish that list in their newspaper much less allow an unscrupulous politician like Diane Feinstein to move one step closer to gun confiscation.

[Max Rockatansky]

I dont think anyone wants a true nutjob to have a gun, my question would be how do you stop it, answer is, you cant. You can stop a few via background checks but that doesnt mean they cant obtain an illegal weapon.

Despite the Nanny Bloombergs , you can buy any kind of gun you want in NYC, LA, Chicago and Philly and rural kentucky and WVirginia. Gotta get real liberals on this one, Guns are here to stay and if you make them illegal they will become just as prevalent as bootleg cigs from down south and Indian Cigarettes and Weed and Herioin and Cocaine that no one ever could stop.

Can't stop, yes, but we can certainly slow it down.

[sotmfs]

My ex-wife was seeing a male therapist when we were getting a divorce.My daughter,whom I was very close to and later chose to live with me ,was brought to the same therapist by her mother.I discovered through a friend of hers and her friends mother that my daughter had some serious issues.I called the therapist and left a message stating I wanted to talk to him about my daughter.He never returned my calls.When I finally got him on the phone He said"I can't tell you what your daughter and I talk about".I replied "I was not asking you to do that".
Evidently He had a preconceived opinion of me He obviously got from my ex-wife.I asked my Daughter how her sessions with him were going.Did She find him helpful.She said no ,all he did was sit there quietly and She did the same.I felt it was inappropriate for her to see the same therapist as Her mother.I felt She should see Her own therapist and it should be a female.I made an appointment with the nurse practitioner that my Daughter had been seeing since Her birth.I talked to her and made Her aware of My daughter's issues(My Daughter had no clue I knew what she was going through)and asked Her to recommend a female therapist.She did,My Daughter went to Her and it was a good thing.
My Daughter was given the help She needed.

My point is one must be careful in choosing a psychiatrist/therapist and be careful what they reveal to them.

[jillian]

However, I do agree if a psyche is seeing someone off the charts that he/she believes is a threat, reporting that individual is fine with me.

unless there are regs that correlate, such a report might or might not affect the wackadoodle's gun rights.

[Max Rockatansky]

My point is one must be careful in choosing a psychiatrist/therapist and be careful what they reveal to them.

Agreed about the care in choosing a psychiatrist or any medical professional. OTOH, not telling them about oneself is like going to a physician or auto mechanic and, when asked "What's wrong?", saying "Guess!'

[Peter1469]

I dont think anyone wants a true nutjob to have a gun, my question would be how do you stop it, answer is, you cant. You can stop a few via background checks but that doesnt mean they cant obtain an illegal weapon.

Despite the Nanny Bloombergs , you can buy any kind of gun you want in NYC, LA, Chicago and Philly and rural kentucky and WVirginia. Gotta get real liberals on this one, Guns are here to stay and if you make them illegal they will become just as prevalent as bootleg cigs from down south and Indian Cigarettes and Weed and Herioin and Cocaine that no one ever could stop.

Merely going to a psychiatrist should not be reason to ban gun ownership, People go to psyches for behavioral changes too like to lose weight or stop smoking via hypnosis and medication. Theres a variety of reasons people visit pysches without it being for mental instability.

However, I do agree if a psyche is seeing someone off the charts that he/she believes is a threat, reporting that individual is fine with me.

That is what should happen under current law in most states, I believe.

[Peter1469]

unless there are regs that correlate, such a report might or might not affect the wackadoodle's gun rights.

But it does affect out patient treatment- it turns into inpatient treatment.