What's new

Thoughts and Prayers

I personally think all sales should go through a dealer, with a background check.
The mental health thing is an obvious. I worry about the slippery slope with doctor/patient confidentiality. I fully admit I don’t know enough about this to speak on it. If a patient tells his doctor he’s having violent thoughts, is the doctor even allowed to tell the government?
I wouldn’t be opposed to increasing the taxes on guns and ammo, as long as it’s used for that purpose. I have my doubts it would actually end up there.
I'm not a fan of mental health checks for a multitude of reasons. The first is that it's ineffective. What you're really trying to prevent is something getting into the hands of a sociopath vs. someone with legitimate mental health problems. Which leads me in to my second reason, that people always make a push for more access to mental health treatment any time there's a national tragedy. This is nonsense. It further stigmatizes the mentally ill by continuing to draw associations with people who are simply sociopaths and not suffering from some other mental illness. There's no therapy or medication you're going to give a sociopath that's going to prevent, to any degree, any of their sociopathic actions and behaviors. If a guy has schizophrenia and believes that his neighbor is conspiring with the KGB to kill him, it could certainly pose a danger to that individual, and you could treat the psychosis, but unfortunately these aren't the situations we're seeing -- we're seeing sociopaths who like harming people -- that's not a "chemical imbalance." On another note, though many sociopaths do find their way into treatment, creating a mental health check won't catch the sociopaths -- it will catch all the other people who are much more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators -- and we can further stigmatize them. All the proposed Muslim restrictions that people bring up wouldn't prevent terrorism, and would only continue to stigmatize regular Muslims -- the same is true with applying this to mental health (though this is currently a huge blind-spot for people who are normally against this kind of thing).

Regarding whether or not a physician could tell law enforcement regarding someone who may harm someone, there is some small variability state-to-state. If there is a specific threat or target, most states have a duty-to-warn law, while some others have a right [not duty] -to-warn. I used to practice in Texas, which was a right-to-warn state. I could inform law-enforcement of a threat without breaking HIPAA (another layer bureaucracy that makes everyone feel good about protection but more often gets in the way), but I couldn't inform the actual individual without violating HIPAA laws. I had a situation where there was a kid who was admitted to the hospital for nothing more than being a little sociopath (i.e. he didn't really have something we could treat) because he was threatening to kill a girl. I reported this to the police of the town, who didn't want to handle it because he wasn't from there, I reported it to the county sheriffs office, who also didn't want to take care of it, and eventually the police officer in his small town, who eventually told the girl's family. The bottom line was that everyone assumed, because he was hospitalized in a psychiatric facility, that he said these things "because he was crazy" and that "we wouldn't let him out until he's all better." Bottom line is we need to stop conflating the mentally ill with sociopaths.
 
I'm not a fan of mental health checks for a multitude of reasons. The first is that it's ineffective. What you're really trying to prevent is something getting into the hands of a sociopath vs. someone with legitimate mental health problems. Which leads me in to my second reason, that people always make a push for more access to mental health treatment any time there's a national tragedy. This is nonsense. It further stigmatizes the mentally ill by continuing to draw associations with people who are simply sociopaths and not suffering from some other mental illness. There's no therapy or medication you're going to give a sociopath that's going to prevent, to any degree, any of their sociopathic actions and behaviors. If a guy has schizophrenia and believes that his neighbor is conspiring with the KGB to kill him, it could certainly pose a danger to that individual, and you could treat the psychosis, but unfortunately these aren't the situations we're seeing -- we're seeing sociopaths who like harming people -- that's not a "chemical imbalance." On another note, though many sociopaths do find their way into treatment, creating a mental health check won't catch the sociopaths -- it will catch all the other people who are much more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators -- and we can further stigmatize them. All the proposed Muslim restrictions that people bring up wouldn't prevent terrorism, and would only continue to stigmatize regular Muslims -- the same is true with applying this to mental health (though this is currently a huge blind-spot for people who are normally against this kind of thing).

Regarding whether or not a physician could tell law enforcement regarding someone who may harm someone, there is some small variability state-to-state. If there is a specific threat or target, most states have a duty-to-warn law, while some others have a right [not duty] -to-warn. I used to practice in Texas, which was a right-to-warn state. I could inform law-enforcement of a threat without breaking HIPAA (another layer bureaucracy that makes everyone feel good about protection but more often gets in the way), but I couldn't inform the actual individual without violating HIPAA laws. I had a situation where there was a kid who was admitted to the hospital for nothing more than being a little sociopath (i.e. he didn't really have something we could treat) because he was threatening to kill a girl. I reported this to the police of the town, who didn't want to handle it because he wasn't from there, I reported it to the county sheriffs office, who also didn't want to take care of it, and eventually the police officer in his small town, who eventually told the girl's family. The bottom line was that everyone assumed, because he was hospitalized in a psychiatric facility, that he said these things "because he was crazy" and that "we wouldn't let him out until he's all better." Bottom line is we need to stop conflating the mentally ill with sociopaths.

people with behavioral disorders will keep me employed forever... spent half my shift yesterday dealing with two such individuals.
 
Imagine being an armed black teacher when the police show up in the midst of a shooting.

exactly...

that's sort of the point of that "good guy with a gun gets shot" thread - - someone wrestled a gun away from the perp, and the cops came, saw the guy with the gun and shot at him

teachers should NOT be expected (or asked) to carry guns - - if that's what the school needs, they need a dedicated trained officer (in uniform) to perform that role
 
exactly...

that's sort of the point of that "good guy with a gun gets shot" thread - - someone wrestled a gun away from the perp, and the cops came, saw the guy with the gun and shot at him

teachers should NOT be expected (or asked) to carry guns - - if that's what the school needs, they need a dedicated trained officer (in uniform) to perform that role

Unfortunately they had a school officer on scene, and he refused to do anything.
 
Unfortunately they had a school officer on scene, and he refused to do anything.

Now imagine teachers with little to no training.
 
exactly...

that's sort of the point of that "good guy with a gun gets shot" thread - - someone wrestled a gun away from the perp, and the cops came, saw the guy with the gun and shot at him

teachers should NOT be expected (or asked) to carry guns - - if that's what the school needs, they need a dedicated trained officer (in uniform) to perform that role

What’s your stance on if they WANT to?
 
What’s your stance on if they WANT to?

Whether they want to or not, to me something has to have gone VERY wrong somewhere along the way for a country to have to equip its teachers with guns and rifles.


Having teachers carry guns and rifles to/at school is like doing puncture repair on a tyre with a chewing gum.
 
Now imagine teachers with little to no training.

Sad that those who have the job to protect us fail us (FBI and officer in this shooting). Don't love the idea of educators walking around armed all the time, but I think the idea of giving a few teachers or admin specialized shooter scenario training is not the worst idea. It should be focused on how to protect students and manage a shooter situation with firearm training as one potential component. Maybe not a great fix, but better than nothing. I also think all of the faculty should have to vote on the teachers to receive this training, and the firearms or protective devices should be biometrically locked in strategic locations with a silent alarm triggered when opened. Maybe even non-lethal options like bean bags, rubber bullets (better than nothing).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sad that those who have the job to protect us fail us (FBI and officer in this shooting). Don't love the idea of educators walking around armed all the time, but I think the idea of giving a few teachers or admin specialized shooter scenario training is not the worst idea. It should be focused on how to protect students and manage a shooter situation with firearm training as one potential component. Maybe not a great fix, but better than nothing. I also think all of the faculty should have to vote on the teachers to receive this training, and the firearms or protective devicew should be biometrically locked in strategic locations with a silent alarm triggered when opened. Maybe even non-lethal options lime bean bags, rubber bullets (better than nothing).

Really good post
 
Sad that those who have the job to protect us fail us (FBI and officer in this shooting). Don't love the idea of educators walking around armed all the time, but I think the idea of giving a few teachers or admin specialized shooter scenario training is not the worst idea. It should be focused on how to protect students and manage a shooter situation with firearm training as one potential component. Maybe not a great fix, but better than nothing. I also think all of the faculty should have to vote on the teachers to receive this training, and the firearms or protective devices should be biometrically locked in strategic locations with a silent alarm triggered when opened. Maybe even non-lethal options like bean bags, rubber bullets (better than nothing).

But don't you think it's going down the wrong road? I mean how many countries in the world has their teachers carry guns or weapons?

You're not fixing the problem at the root.
 
But don't you think it's going down the wrong road? I mean how many countries in the world has their teachers carry guns or weapons?

You're not fixing the problem at the root.

Maybe. But it is a start. I don't see an immediate fix, do you?
 
Instead of putting up barbwires around every single schools in the country and turn them into barracks for kids, why not just make it harder for people to get automatic assault weapons designed to kill hundreds at a time?

I really don't get it.
 
Instead of putting up barbwires around every single schools in the country and turn them into barracks for kids, why not just make it harder for people to get automatic assault weapons designed to kill hundreds at a time?

I really don't get it.

That's cause you're using reason and common sense, that has no place in America, especially when it comes to guns.
 
Instead of putting up barbwires around every single schools in the country and turn them into barracks for kids, why not just make it harder for people to get automatic assault weapons designed to kill hundreds at a time?

I really don't get it.
I dunno, I'd rather fix the fundamental issue at hand than do something hasty and going down a route you'd regret later.

Jesus. Barbed wire? Automatic weapons?
 
Name me 1 country in the developed world where teachers are forced to handle weapons to protect the children.

I am fine with a ban on semi-auto rifles. Hand guns cause more deaths. I am even fine with a ban on all guns. But when reference automatic weapons and barb wire I don't have much to say, but you'd fit right in with most of our politicians.

The fact is, even banning guns, with our current laws, will take time. Getting the votes, passing laws, overpowering lobbyists, going against or amending the Constitution... As you can see, a plethora of huge hurdles to jump through. The cost along of the governmental taking for confiscating guns, not to mention the backlash from many armed citizens would be a mess. Gun control logically has to happen in stages. And with the laws in place, there has to be some compromise, which our politicians and most citizens are unwilling to do. In the interim, I would feel safer if my kids teachers and administrators were trained for a shooter situation. I think training, and secured non-lethal but incapacitating protective devices would be a good stop-gap in the interim. I don't like the idea of conceal carry by teachers, but "gun-free zones" (i.e. targets) in our current environment scares me even more.
 
Top