1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

Sheriffs To Discuss Mental Illness, Gun Violence

Discussion in 'Politics, Elections & Legislation' started by 548, Jan 23, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 548

    548 Guest

    ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — A group of Minnesota sheriffs want to make it harder for those suffering from mental illness to obtain guns.

    Hennepin County Sheriff Rich Stanek, Carver County Sheriff Jim Olson and others are holding a news conference Wednesday to announce proposed reforms to the state’s gun laws.

    Among them, the sheriffs want to strengthen background checks for those who want to own guns.

    They also want law enforcement to have more access to an individual’s mental health records. And they want the state to address a lack of services for Minnesotans with untreated mental illness.

    More details on the proposed reforms will be shared Wednesday afternoon. They have been endorsed by the Minnesota Sheriffs Association.
  2. 548

    548 Guest

    From article:

    The FBI told CBS News eight states have submitted only five or fewer names prohibited for mental health reasons, but declined to identify those states, and suggested submitting a Freedom of Information Act request.
  3. 548

    548 Guest

    Lack of Gun Control in SD:

    SIOUX FALLS, SD - In 1998 the FBI launched the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS. This database is designed to prevent anyone with a history of mental illness from being able to purchase a gun.
    It was recently reported that eight states have not been actively submitting names to the database. South Dakota is one.

    Each state is responsible for submitting the names of illegal immigrants, felons, fugitives, abusers, drug addicts and the mentally ill.

    "Not reporting on mentally ill in South Dakota is probably not necessarily a thought-out choice. I don't think we necessarily say we definitely don't want to report how many mentally ill we have in South Dakota. I think it's just, if it's not required, if it's not mandated, we're not going to step forward and do it," Representative Paula Hawks said.

    Hawks believes this issue goes hand-in-hand with other hot topics in the state legislature right now.

    "Especially in light of the gun issues that we're going to have this year, I think it's incredibly important that we understand what those statistics are and that we know what we're dealing with so that we can make informed choices and understand the legislation that we're talking about," Hawks said.

    While Hawks is not aware of any official talks at the state level to start sharing names with the database, she does believe it would make sense with current reform talks.

    "It is something that I hope we would take a closer look at. We're really looking at this justice reform, criminal justice reform. And if we're really going to talk about reforming our justice system, we really need to talk about the mentally ill factor and take a look at how that affects gun violence, how that affects any kind of violence, how it affects just crime in general," Hawks said.

    According to the FBI, more than 1.8 million people have been banned from buying guns because of mental health reasons.
  4. 548

    548 Guest

    16% of the states are not currently reporting mental illness issues to the NCIS. This is the first issue that should be immediately addressed.
  5. rpeerless

    rpeerless Well-Known Member

    Dec 4, 2009
    Subject: Deaths around the world by country
    From: Old One Eye
    Date: Tue, Jan 22, 2013 - 09:55 PM ET
    Website Address:

    From the World Health Organization:

    The latest Murder Statistics for the world:

    Murders per 100,000 citizens

    Honduras 91.6

    El Salvador 69.2

    Cote d'lvoire 56.9

    Jamaica 52.2

    Venezuela 45.1

    Belize 41.4

    US Virgin Islands 39.2

    Guatemala 38.5

    Saint Kits and Nevis 38.2

    Zambia 38.0

    Uganda 36.3

    Malawi 36.0

    Lesotho 35.2

    Trinidad and Tobago 35.2

    Colombia 33.4

    South Africa 31.8

    Congo 30.8

    Central African Republic 29.3

    Bahamas 27.4

    Puerto Rico 26.2

    Saint Lucia 25.2

    Dominican Republic 25.0

    Tanzania 24.5

    Sudan 24.2

    Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 22.9

    Ethiopia 22.5

    Guinea 22.5

    Dominica 22.1

    Burundi 21.7

    Democratic Republic of the Congo 21.7

    Panama 21.6

    Brazil 21.0

    Equatorial Guinea 20.7

    Guinea-Bissau 20.2

    Kenya 20.1

    Kyrgyzstan 20.1

    Cameroon 19.7

    Montserrat 19.7

    Greenland 19.2

    Angola 19.0

    Guyana 18.6

    Burkina Faso 18.0

    Eritrea 17.8

    Namibia 17.2

    Rwanda 17.1

    Mexico 16.9

    Chad 15.8

    Ghana 15.7

    Ecuador 15.2

    North Korea 15.2

    Benin 15.1

    Sierra Leone 14.9

    Mauritania 14.7

    Botswana 14.5

    Zimbabwe 14.3

    Gabon 13.8

    Nicaragua 13.6

    French Guiana 13.3

    Papua New Guinea 13.0

    Swaziland 12.9

    Bermuda 12.3

    Comoros 12.2

    Nigeria 12.2

    Cape Verde 11.6

    Grenada 11.5

    Paraguay 11.5

    Barbados 11.3

    Togo 10.9

    Gambia 10.8

    Peru 10.8

    Myanmar 10.2

    Russia 10.2

    Liberia 10.1

    Costa Rica 10.0

    Nauru 9.8

    Bolivia 8.9

    Mozambique 8.8

    Kazakhstan 8.8

    Senegal 8.7

    Turks and Caicos Islands 8.7

    Mongolia 8.7

    British Virgin Islands 8.6

    Cayman Islands 8.4

    Seychelles 8.3

    Madagascar 8.1

    Indonesia 8.1

    Mali 8.0

    Pakistan 7.8

    Moldova 7.5

    Kiribati 7.3

    Guadeloupe 7.0

    Haiti 6.9

    Timor-Leste 6.9

    Anguilla 6.8

    Antigua and Barbuda 6.8

    Lithuania 6.6

    Uruguay 5.9

    Philippines 5.4

    Ukraine 5.2

    Estonia 5.2

    Cuba 5.0

    Belarus 4.9

    Thailand 4.8

    Suriname 4.6

    Laos 4.6

    Georgia 4.3

    Martinique 4.2


    The United States 4.2

    ALL the countries above America have 100% gun bans
  6. rpeerless

    rpeerless Well-Known Member

    Dec 4, 2009
  7. rpeerless

    rpeerless Well-Known Member

    Dec 4, 2009

    On the list of countries, how about US citizen only gun sales. Or selective immigration. Don't see China on that list must be over the top. Don't see the Middle East,or Europe either.
  8. partygirl

    partygirl TS Member

    Dec 22, 2006
    rpeerless: good post, I see 548 hasn't said anything, maybe he's still choking.
  9. 548

    548 Guest

    Partygirl, the post is about mental health and the fact that 8 of the 50 states refuse to report it. Who knows to what degree the other 42 are reporting. And so since reeperless' comments were not in regard to the subject it would be silly to comment.

    Based on your participation in this thread in a manner that puts me down, is it fair to say you are in favor of states not reporting mental illness criteria to the NCIS?
  10. CalvinMD

    CalvinMD Well-Known Member

    Jan 29, 1998
    Northeastern MD @ the top o the Bay
    I agree with 548...mentally ill sheriffs are a major cause of gun violence
  11. darr

    darr Well-Known Member

    Jan 29, 1998
    548 I don't know but I'll bet those 8 states are no more dangerous than the other 42.Having said that I do believe crazy people should not own guns.I just don't want my rights stepped on to prevent it.

  12. JACK

    JACK Well-Known Member Supporting Vendor

    Apr 28, 2006
    NW Wisconsin
    The negative posts/points are moot. the President has said he willsign exec orders to faciltate what these sheriffs are doing trench work on. Money will flow. These ngative comments mean nothing. Look at actions. Look at Bass Pro and others deciding on their own to implement new safety checks. You will not change these facts.
  13. Traders

    Traders Well-Known Member

    Jan 29, 1998

    So, how would you suggest that "crazy people" be prevented from getting guns without your rights being "stepped on" to prevent it.

    As an aside, mental health professionals will tell you that their ability to predict that someone will become violent is not very good. Many people say violent things as in " I could have killed him" but few carry through.
  14. CalvinMD

    CalvinMD Well-Known Member

    Jan 29, 1998
    Northeastern MD @ the top o the Bay
    Very hard to predict in all but the most severe cases,..but someone that has had violent episodes well documented by police and verified by a couple of different drs should be moved onto a watch list at the very least for sure...and someone who is psychotic and requiring medication to not be a danger to themselves or others needs to be willing to submit to periodic tests to prove they are staying on those meds or be automatically moved to the NOGO list...I often wondered why if they can create birth control subdermal implants that last for long periods for woman...why such a thing cant also be done for those who need antipsychotic drugs to function?? No fuss but maybe once or twice a year and theres a no chance they can go off them either by forgetting or refusal...the govt already tries protecting everyone from their own stupidity,..why not protect them AND US from their mental illness?...consider it the same as getting a drunk off the road or a drug addict in a methadone program..its expensive and troublesome but necessary...go figure
  15. RobertT

    RobertT Well-Known Member

    Jun 27, 2006
    Perhaps women should have to turn in guns once a month. You can bet that once mental health screenings start the gun grabbers will have a field day.

  16. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Jan 29, 1998
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    Didn't it occur to 548 that there are laws in some states that mandate mental health files be kept confidential as it is private information between a patient and his or her doctor?

    These kinds of laws will have to be addressed before these records can be made available to NICS.
  17. darr

    darr Well-Known Member

    Jan 29, 1998
    I don't know the answer.Someone smarter than I will have to come up with that one.Like Brian stated many privacy issues will have to be figured out before anything lawful and meaningful can take place.What I am not for is some knee jerk law that makes the libs feel good,infringes on my rights,and doesnn't do anything to help the issue of mentals getting a gun.Of course if they take their time and get it right they will have wasted the chance to make hay over a tragedy.

  18. rpeerless

    rpeerless Well-Known Member

    Dec 4, 2009
    548. If, you read the actual articles I posted here and still do not get the correlation you never will. If you can't get the string through the inch wide lacing holes you:

    A. Never learned how to comprehend what is written or

    B Never set foot outside your population of three hundred town.

    RobertT, I thought of that but didn't write it lol. Again at age fifty or so.
  19. Traders

    Traders Well-Known Member

    Jan 29, 1998

    There probably is no way to write a law that meets your or my criteria that::

    1. Isn't "knee Jerk" which is always in the eyes of the beholder
    2. Doesn't infringe on your rights either today or tomorrow
    3. Overcomes the various state health privacy laws
    4. Would get those that needed health care to get the care they needed if they knew that their names would be provided to some sort of federal data base that might exclude them from having guns.
    5. Provides for removing guns from formerly mentally healthy persons.
  20. wolfram

    wolfram Well-Known Member

    Jul 17, 2007
    Brian hit on a real sticky point and to extend that thought, if a person's mental health history were open to review by some agency then there would be even greater reluctance for people to seek help when they suspected they had a problem. There is already quite a negative stigma attached to seeing a shrink.

    Don't get me wrong - I don't want the crazy guy to have access to a firearm but we are talking about a huge invasion of privacy and loss of other rights which could happen to a person just because they sought treatment for depression at some point.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.