# Armed and Dangerous, 60 Minutes



## Lisa (Apr 29, 2007)

Anyone catch the 60 minutes program today about the laws that ban the sale of firearms to people with a history of severe mental illness?

I was absolutely dumbfounded and my jaw on the ground when Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America had this to say:



> You might think that there would be little opposition to such a move, but you'd be wrong. The most vocal is Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, which has 375,000 members and sees nothing wrong with the mentally ill buying guns.
> 
> "We think this is simply another way of eliminating another large group of people from gun ownership in this country," Pratt argues.
> 
> ...



Fully Story here.

I just had to stop in my tracks.  The NRA wants the introduced legislation that would provide funds for states to collect and maintain records on the mentally ill and punish them if failed to make the information available to the FBI database.  

How can Mr. Pratt believe that guns don't kill people, people kill people and still believe that it is alright to put a leathal weapon in the hands of a mentally disturbed individual?

Enlighten me if I am not seeing the whole story.  Did anyone else see 
the story?


----------



## Kacey (Apr 29, 2007)

Uhh... some people are idiots?

Actually, I think it has to do with the mentality that says that if you allow anyone to limit the purchase of handguns (or access to abortion, or limit free speech... you get the idea) it could become the thin edge of a very large wedge that could be used to write more restrictive laws - therefore, to avoid that, you have to ensure that _nothing_ increases the existing restrictions, lest that be used to restrict something else.  I don't agree with it - especially in this case - but I suspect that that has something to do with the mindset that produces such an irresponsible attitude.


----------



## Lisa (Apr 29, 2007)

Irresponsible attitude is exactly what I think that statement is.

I know many gun owners and they are the most responsible people when it comes to their firearms and very adament about who should have firearms and who shouldn't.

People that are mentally unstable and have been deemed so involuntarily by a medical doctor are not responsible for their actions in the eyes of the law, am I right in saying that?  So why should they have the right to possess a potentially leathal weapon?


----------



## exile (Apr 29, 2007)

And this in the wake of Va. Tech????

Mr. Pratt seems very aptly named. (Hint:  check out http://www.answers.com/topic/prat)


----------



## Ceicei (Apr 29, 2007)

Well, think about it.  Not every type of mental illness would cause a person to  "go crazy".  Some mental issues may not be permanent.  Not every person who has ever visited a psychologist or requested counseling to simply talk over some issues and/or concerns should be barred from owning a gun/purchasing ammunition.

People may argue that the above is not the population intended in the article.  The population mentioned are the severely mentally disturbed who have been involuntarily committed.   The real question here is whether they will stop at just that population?  Will they try extending this to other groups?  Who will draw the line?

Mind you, I have no objection with having guns kept out of the hands of those who are not capable of making reasoned decisions.  Even if we manage to make a very highly accurate database that are shared across states, this will not eliminate or stop those who choose to do harm to self and others.  How can we properly focus upon those who are determined to harm and at the same time, not take everyone else into the same net?

- Ceicei


----------



## Lisa (Apr 29, 2007)

Ceicei said:


> The real question here is whether they will stop at just that population?  Will they try extending this to other groups?  Who will draw the line?
> 
> - Ceicei




You make a good point, Ceicei and I understand where you are coming from.

However in answer to the questions I have quoted above.

Will they, probably and who will stop them?  You will and every other citizen that believes in their right to bear arms.  By going out and voting, being a member of the NRA and speaking your mind, you will never lose that right.  Your country has held it for centuries.

But the fact remains that these leathal weapons fall into the wrong hands and the legislation to stop  that from happening is already in place.  What needs to happen is the funding to allow a national data base so that people like Cho never get their hands on a weapon again.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Apr 29, 2007)

I think where he is coming from is that the "Government" isnt so keen at differentiating. Will someone with an obsessive compulsive disorder who washes his hands all the time, but otherwise wouldnt harm a fly be put in the same bin as the VT freak? 

But I do agree that people deemed to be a threat to the well being of others shouldnt be able to legally purchase a weapon.


----------



## Grenadier (Apr 30, 2007)

I do not agree with Pratt on many issues, since he prefers torpedoing pro-gun legislation if it doesn't go all the way.  On the other hand, I do agree with much of what he says, since giving people an inch on anti-gun legislation can easily snowball into the whole yard.    

In this instance, I'm simply going to present his side of the argument.  


GOA (including Pratt) has always taken a "no compromise" attitude, and does this with anything that could invade someone's privacy.  

Here's a portion of GOA's statement, regarding HR297:

http://gunowners.org/a042607.htm



> HR 297 would require the states to turn over mountains of personal data (on people like you) to the FBI -- any information which according to the Attorney General, _in his or her unilateral discretion_, would be useful in ascertaining who is or is not a "prohibited person."
> 
> Liberal support for this bill points out an interesting hypocrisy in their loyalties: For six years, congressional Democrats have complained about the Bush administration's efforts to obtain personal information on suspected terrorists WITHOUT A COURT ORDER.
> 
> ...


That being said, I am surprised that the people from the ACLU aren't helping Pratt and co. on this matter, since they are usually the first people in line to defend people on these matters (including suspected terrorists, illegal aliens, etc).


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 30, 2007)

Ceicei said:


> Well, think about it.  Not every type of mental illness would cause a person to  "go crazy".  Some mental issues may not be permanent.  Not every person who has ever visited a psychologist or requested counseling to simply talk over some issues and/or concerns should be barred from owning a gun/purchasing ammunition.
> 
> People may argue that the above is not the population intended in the article.  The population mentioned are the severely mentally disturbed who have been involuntarily committed.   The real question here is whether they will stop at just that population?  Will they try extending this to other groups?  Who will draw the line?
> 
> ...


While no gun law will keep guns out of the hands of those who truly want one -- whether or not they are legally permitted or whatever their intent -- I don't see a problem with laws that will at least make it harder for those who have been involuntarily committed to get their hands on them.  I'm only familiar with Virginia's laws, but to involuntarily commit someone means that you have to show a judge that they ARE a serious threat to themselves or someone else.  It's not easy; hell, where I live and work, it's not easy to get the mental health folks to hold someone that we pull of the street because they're evidencing serious indications of being dangerous to themselves or others.  (Isn't someone who holds a conversation with people who aren't there, and talks of killing themselves sort of maybe a threat to themselves?  The docs didn't thing so...)  And I don't know many cops here that like taking someone in like that, because it's a lenghty, complicated and difficult process. 

The only problem I have is two-sided.  First, there should be a way for a person to show that they are no longer a threat to themselves/others, and can regain their right to own a gun.  For example, say someone becomes seriously and situationally depressed following a breakup and they make multiple suicidal statements.  They're involuntarily committed, get treated and are released.  A couple of years go by, and they want to take up single-action cowboy shooting.  OOPS... they can't have a gun, they've been involuntarily committed -- even though there's no indication that they remain a threat to themselves or others.  The other side?  What about a guy who voluntarily commits himself because he realizes that getting orders from Commander #3 that tell him to kill everyone around him is not good...  He CAN get a gun because he was VOLUNTARILY committed, as I understand the proposed legislation.  Not good...


----------



## JBrainard (Apr 30, 2007)

Ceicei said:


> Well, think about it. Not every type of mental illness would cause a person to "go crazy". Some mental issues may not be permanent. Not every person who has ever visited a psychologist or requested counseling to simply talk over some issues and/or concerns should be barred from owning a gun/purchasing ammunition.
> 
> People may argue that the above is not the population intended in the article. The population mentioned are the severely mentally disturbed who have been involuntarily committed. The real question here is whether they will stop at just that population? Will they try extending this to other groups? Who will draw the line?


 


Grenadier said:


> HR 297 would require the states to turn over mountains of personal data (on people like you) to the FBI -- any information which according to the Attorney General, *in his or her unilateral discretion*, would be useful in ascertaining who is or is not a "prohibited person."



Doesn't sound to good for people who have mental issues are not permanent or can be effectively treated with medication (like mine). I didn't plan on buying a gun any time soon, but maybe I should before the government's control get's out of hand.


----------



## exile (Apr 30, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> What about a guy who voluntarily commits himself because he realizes that getting orders from Commander #3 that tell him to kill everyone around him is not good...  He CAN get a gun because he was VOLUNTARILY committed, as I understand the proposed legislation.  Not good...



Whoa, seriously scary. Reminds me of a T-shirt I once saw on campus: 

* I'm sorry, but I can't hear you. 
The voices in my head that tell me what to do are 
very LOUD at the moment.*​
Ha ha... until you think about it. For any number of folks out there, it's no joke.


----------



## K31 (Apr 30, 2007)

Ceicei hit the nail on the head. 

Psychology and psychiatry are not sciences in the sense that the physical sciences are where repeatable experiments can be performed. This is not universally true, but there are few experiments that can be performed due to ethical concerns.

Therefore, a great deal of what is applied are simply theories that vary from discipline to discipline. This does not apply of course to instances where there is an organic cause to abberent behavior.

I can easy see a individual  mental health practitioner who believes that anyone who wants to own a firearm is dangerous or mentally unstable and tries to deny that person his rights on that basis.

That's not to say that people who have committed overt acts should be allowed to be armed, it's just that restricting someone's rights based on non-ojective means is a slippery slope.


----------

