Should veterans with emotional problems be denied guns?

[spin]

Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence


Washington, DC

Media Press Release
Statement on Fort Hood Tragedy

Nov 6, 2009

- Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, issued the following statement about the tragedy at Fort Hood, Texas:

***snip***

“When I heard of the tragedy yesterday, we were in the midst of planning a response to the latest dangerous legislative proposal from the gun lobby in the United States Senate - language to automatically restore access to guns to veterans designated by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and the Justice Department as ‘mentally incapacitated’ or ‘mentally incompetent.’ In light of what happened yesterday - a violent attack by an emotionally unstable soldier - it is even clearer that the proposal being pushed by Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina should be rejected.

“America has seen an epidemic of horrific gun violence at churches and synagogues, workplaces, health clubs, high schools, universities, police stations and now Army bases. This latest tragedy, at a heavily fortified army base, ought to convince more Americans to reject the argument that the solution to gun violence is to arm more people with more guns in more places. Enough is enough.”
http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/press/view/1193/

****

VETERANS DISARMAMENT ACT TO BAR VETS FROM OWNING GUNS

By Larry Pratt
September 22, 2007
NewsWithViews.com

Hundreds of thousands of veterans -- from Vietnam through Operation Iraqi Freedom -- are at risk of being banned from buying firearms if legislation that is pending in Congress gets enacted.

How? The Veterans Disarmament Act -- which has already passed the House -- would place any veteran who has ever been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) on the federal gun ban list.

This is exactly what President Bill Clinton did over seven years ago when his administration illegitimately added some 83,000 veterans into the National Criminal Information System (NICS system) -- prohibiting them from purchasing firearms, simply because of afflictions like PTSD.

The proposed ban is actually broader. Anyone who is diagnosed as being a tiny danger to himself or others would have his gun rights taken away ... forever. It is section 102(b)(1)(C)(iv) in HR 2640 that provides for dumping raw medical records into the system. Those names -- like the 83,000 records mentioned above -- will then, by law, serve as the basis for gun banning.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Pratt/larry81.htm

[villager]

1. Of course not! People with emotional problems should be given bigger, better, faster, guns!

Whenever, wherever, however possible!

[one-eyed fat man]

14. There are those

who by their definition, include ALL combat veterans in the that category. The gentle lady from New York, Carolyn "goes up thingy" McCarthy from New York. She propose legislation that all combat veterans be on that list and has proposed legislation military and VA health records be used to populate the banned list with anyone who has so much as a screening.

Nice touch, since the military mandates PTSD and Suicide prevention counseling for all returning soldiers and there are jurisdictions which have decided that even that is disqualifying.

What a pile of crap to hear from civilians whose only experience with military service has been avoidance, ridicule and cowardice!................ and on Veteran's Day, to boot!

[slackmaster]

2. Most people have emotional problems. Most people with emotional problems do not pose a danger

To anyone. That's why we have a legal system that can adjudicate who can and cannot own guns.

[derby378]

3. That depends - who gets to decide what an "emotional problem" is?

Some bureaucrat who's in bed with the Brady Campaign? I think not.

[old mark]

4. Fuck all these "Brady" people - Republican assholes.nt

[benEzra]

5. PTSD is not and should not be a disqualifying condition.

And people with PTSD are not "killers in waiting" as the repubs at the Brady Campaign would like to portray them.

[slackmaster]

6. Yes, I have had PTSD symptoms since age 7 and haven't killed anyone yet

It's the result of a traumatic experience I had at that time. I wasn't physically harmed, but the experience has colored my entire life. There are a couple of things that freak me out, otherwise it's kind of a heightened awareness that I have channeled it into a life-long commitment to act quickly and decicively when I see a dangerous situation.

[spin]

9. I agree that PTSD shouldn't be the only determining factor...

I've known people with this disorder and they didn't strike me as dangerous in any way.

[slackmaster]

11. I'm generally high-strung and a little jumpy

Unlike someone with PTSD from wartime, the sound and concussion of gunfire and explosions doesn't bother me. In fact, I like them.

My circuit breakers trip at some household sights and sounds that wouldn't bother most people much if at all. Screeching tires (as in someone braking hard) freak me out as a result of a couple of car crashes in which I was hit and injured.

[spin]

13. The people I knew were disturbed by short loud noises...

that sounded like explosions, but otherwise seemed perfectly normal.

Banning everyone with PTSD would be like banning gun ownership to those who were afraid of spiders. But I need remind myself that the Brady Campaign wants to do this.

[Arctic Dave]

7. Define "emotional problems" first and then I will say yes or no.

[spin]

8. That's fair...

but we have to be really careful who does the defining.

Obviously, we all have emotional problems. The only problems that should disqualify a person should be those problems which present the clear potential of endangering others.

[AtheistCrusader]

10. Only if held to the same standard as any civilian: Ajudicated mentally disturbed.

Different states have different bars for measuring this, such as a order from a judge, or being held involuntarily in a mental health facility for 24h or more.

They should be held to the same standards, and have the same recognized rights as any civilian.

[X_Digger]

12. Due Process? Nah.. let a shrink take your rights away. n/t