It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
A newly created database of New Yorkers deemed too mentally unstable to carry firearms has grown to roughly 34,500 names, a previously undisclosed figure that has raised concerns among some mental health advocates that too many people have been categorized as dangerous.
The law, better known for its ban on assault weapons, compels licensed mental health professionals in New York to report to the authorities any patient “likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to self or others.”
Under the 2013 law, the reports prepared by doctors, psychologists, nurses and social workers are first sent to county officials. If they agree with the assessments, the officials then input the names into the state database. The information is retained for five years. If the authorities find a person in the database has a gun permit — necessary to purchase a handgun in New York — they are required to revoke the license and seize any guns. The people in the database are barred from obtaining a permit until their names are purged.
Because the names in New York’s database and the circumstances of their cases are private, it is impossible to independently determine whether the people in it are truly dangerous.
The overwhelming majority of reports from mental health professionals are coming from hospitals — often community hospitals — with an emergency room and inpatient psychiatric services, according to several county officials. Relatively few came from either outpatient mental health clinics or private therapists, they said. The typical diagnoses are schizophrenia, psychosis or major depression.
“The threshold for reporting is so low that it essentially advertises that psychiatrists are mandatory reporters for anybody who expresses any kind of dangerousness,” said Dr. Mark J. Russ, director of acute care psychiatry at Zucker Hillside Hospital in Glen Oaks, Queens, which has filed many reports to the state.
originally posted by: Bone75
In the interest of public safety, it seems like these guys above anyone else, should not be allowed to have guns. But at the same time, how can you justify taking guns away from those who put their lives on the line for our country and deserve to have them more than anyone else?
It's quite a conundrum if you ask me.
originally posted by: FissionSurplus
There is already a law in which those who have attempted suicide, as adults, have to sign a paper that is on file with local law enforcement that states that they will not have any firearms in their home ever again. It also goes into a database so if you try to buy a gun, you will be rejected.
They're just ramping it up to include more people, IMHO. If they include all those who have a diagnosis of "depression" (whether a one time thing or recurrent), and who have ever taken an SSRI or a tranquilizer, the number could be in the millions.
originally posted by: Bone75
Do you think the prospect of never being able to own a gun will deter people from getting the help they need?
originally posted by: Xtrozero
I guess it all depends on what they use to classify the level of mental health issues that would put a person on the list. It is scary anyway you look at it but is 35k a high number or low number? Another way to look at it without trying to sensationalize the issue is to say that the state of New York has put .02% of their population on the list.
So I guess my question back is do you all is do you think that only .02% of New Yorkers should not have guns? I would think that percentage would be higher when even if we take just one disorder that we may not want them to have guns "Schizophrenia" comes out to 1.1% of the population.
originally posted by: Bone75
I'm straddling the fence on this one. A while back, I recall one of our veterans starting a thread pertaining to the effect fireworks have on combat veterans with PTSD. Someone in the thread (possibly the OP) said that during a 4th of July celebration in his neighborhood where fireworks were going off, he actually grabbed his gun and headed for the door, but was stopped by his wife. Then other members began to chime in with similar stories.
After reading the thread and pondering possible solutions, I found myself in a mental paradox.
In the interest of public safety, it seems like these guys above anyone else, should not be allowed to have guns. But at the same time, how can you justify taking guns away from those who put their lives on the line for our country and deserve to have them more than anyone else?
It's quite a conundrum if you ask me.