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.

 

Mental Health Issues Put 34,500 on New York’s No-Guns List

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Mental Health Issues Put 34,500 on New York’s No-Guns List



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.

I wonder if they would allow you to get a second opinion? Will only licensed mental health professionals be qualified to make a judgement about your mental status or will your friends and family be consulted as well? In my opinion, mental health is not something that can be diagnosed in a short time period unless it is extremely obvious. The people that have surrounded you your whole life would probably know you best. Except, they are not experts.


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.”

What constitutes "likely to engage"? Why would a person be reported to authorities instead of receiving more help? If you become blacklisted, is there any way to be removed from that list? So many questions...


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.

John has been an excellent neighbor for the past ten years. His children play with my children. But after running his name through a few search engines, he has been deemed mentally unstable and could become a potential threat to my family. I better call the authorities if I see anything suspicious.




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.

This is very telling. You are more likely to be fast tracked into mental disorder status rather than going through an extensive and thorough series of questions and tests. Even then, one only has to have an active imagination to be considered crazy.


“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.


Mental Illness - The Facts

Your either a terrorist or mentally unstable. Swallow this pill and keep your mouth shut like all good little patriots do. Your mental health evaluation has been completed and you will be receiving a packet in the mail with further intructions and restrictions placed upon you by law. Failure to abide by these rules will result in the Gestapo kicking down your door, shooting your dog, taking your kids away, while we forcefully medicate you to a more calm and manageable state. Any chance of seeing your wife and children again will be evaluated by your mental health case worker. Remain calm, and have a nice day!


edit on 19-10-2014 by eisegesis because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 11:50 AM
link   
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.


edit on 19-10-2014 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 12:11 PM
link   
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.



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 12:21 PM
link   

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.


With my 28 years in the Military I would say if a guy ever has flashbacks triggered by anything that puts him in a state where he grabs his gun because "Charlie is coming over the wire" or "Akbar is climbing the walls" I do not want that guy to have a gun to grab....sorry



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 12:25 PM
link   
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.



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 12:53 PM
link   

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.


You are correct!

Besides, shrinks already have the authority to contact law enforcement if they think someone may be a danger to themselves or others. The patient is then put in the mental ward for 72 hours for observation to decide if in fact they are or they aren't. The problem is, if that happens and the "law" puts a person in, then all firearm "rights" are removed.

It doesn't surprise me that this is happening in NY either. Cuomo has his head so far up Bloomberg's you know what, that the 2nd amendment will most definitely be assaulted in New York state.

Connecticut most likely will follow suit!

Which also goes to show how those in charge have an agenda! Why would anyone seek mental health help, if they KNOW, they will lose their right to bear arms? How does this attitude jive with the constant MSM double speak of not ENOUGH mental health help being available?

Someone who is suicidal is not necessarily wanting to hurt or kill someone else! They just want out of this madness....

As usual, it is all about how the government cares so much about our safety that they know what's best for the us. I think most of us realize at this point, that OUR safety is the LAST thing these criminals in government could care about......

The taking of firearms is about THEIR safety, not our.........



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

Do you think the prospect of never being able to own a gun will deter people from getting the help they need?



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963

CT will most likely follow suit? I'd be shocked if it didn't no matter which corporate shill becomes Governor this upcoming election. Malloy is all for gun control and Foley is anti gun control but pro mental health measures. Almost everyone in CT wants one measure or the other thanks to our wonderful false flag.

NY and CT have been symbiotic for a long time. Even as a child I noticed that any law in one state usually is adopted in the other. CT will be tripping over itself in the rush to enact this one.



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 03:53 PM
link   

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?


Actually I do not care and do not see it as related to getting help. I do think they should regain their right to bare arms once so deemed fit to do so.



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 04:36 PM
link   

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.


This is just a snapshot of things to come. They couldn't take our guns away with sympathy and empathy for victims of school shootings, so they are trying another angle. Something is brewing and when the dam finally breaks, they do not want us armed.

While right now the number is low, this is laying the groundwork for a much larger endeavor. While applying for a gun permit, you will now have to give up your Facebook credentials and submit a form to your local physician. And while I think this will keep some guns out of peoples hands, it never really stops them from getting one if they wanted to anyway.

We should increase our education about guns while also making permit holders more responsible and held accountable. Instead, lawmakers are labeling them as too dangerous for an adult society and eroding the constitution in the process.



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 04:36 PM
link   

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.

I agree, I am also on the fence. I am a naturally optimistic person but while it may help this one man, either from himself or others, do you think there is enough knowledge and an efficient working system in place to keep the right people in and the misdiagnosed out? There is little oversight and most are being diagnosed with a mental disorder from community centers who have little to no knowledge of the patient or their history.

And then there is the bigger question...Is war really necessary? People die fighting for an illusionary cause while the ones that survives are walking dead. Not everybody ends up this way but it's kind of ironic right? We can put a gun in your hand and order you to shoot a bunch of people. When you return home, you are now deemed unstable and will get your weapon taken away. See the irony? I guess when they return home and see that their actions overseas has accomplished nothing, they become upset. Their training and ability to use a weapon becomes a greater internal threat than that which we are fighting overseas.

Why would a country try to disarm it's own people? I thought we were the ultimate reserve in a time of great war. The only government that wants to remove guns from its own people are the ones who plan to stage a civil war.


edit on 19-10-2014 by eisegesis because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: eisegesis

That's the core of this. I'm all for less guns because they clearly cause more death and violence but these kinds of measures only work if they are transparent.

This absolutely and utterly reeks of disarming the American people in preparation for the police state. The police state is coming. It's not a question of if but rather when.



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 06:06 PM
link   
I'm from Detroit and I have paranoid schizophrenia. I'm a sportsman and I own several guns for hunting. I am pose no threat to anyone I'm not a violent person. I do not have homicidal or suicidal thoughts. I've been on medication for 20 years. Even in the deepest darkest days of psychosis I lived in my parents basement with a unlocked gun cabinet full or guns. It never once crossed my mind to use those guns for anything. Not everyone with a mental illness is dangerous.

In Detroit 1/3 of the inner city can't read at a 6th grade level. On the fourth of July it sounds like WW3. I smoke outside and I hear gunshots every night and I don't think they're shooting at rats. I'd be more afraid of dumb asses that smoke crack with guns then someone with a mental illness. Only a very small percentage of the mentally ill are dangerous.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: wantsome

This man speaks the truth

90% of homicides and violent crimes are committed by perfectly sane people.

In fact, having a mental disorder makes you 10x more likely to be a victim. Just because you don't think the same way, doesn't automatically make you a raving cannibal. From my experience, most people in mental health places suffer from a bad event or many bad events or have a chemical imbalance when they try to get help and then get told that a) there's nothing wrong with them, b) this is what's wrong with you and here's your meds.

No outpatient checkups, no free therapy, nothing. Just eat your pills until you can't walk and you'll be better. Who cares if it gives you liver disease, cancer, enormous weight gain or makes your problem worse, once you're out, not their problem.

And now this malarkey. Can't wait until they make this a federal law and makes the criteria as anyone who's been admitted for psychiatric services, therefore ensuring millions and millions of people can't own guns.

Prove me wrong ATS. Show me one instance where the government took firearms from people and their quality of life improved. Maybe in places where they're so pacified that they get told by their government how to think, breathe, and act you won't see violent crime. but go elsewhere and you will see proof.

Gun control leads to the government acting against the interest of the people. Every #ing time.

I got taught how to be patient, to stay motionless for hours, days, even weeks. Just to wait for the perfect moment. How to infiltrate sensitive areas. How to engage in unarmed combat against multiple armed attackers. How to destroy any building or structure, how to make the materials needed. How to organize guerrillas and manage a effective insurgency. How to live off the grid as a ghost, building FLIR proof shelters and garments. And how to contact other comrades without breaking OPSEC, with morse code, smoke signals, signs next to trails, and how to make sure that they can't listen.

When I went inside for rightfully defending myself, I almost got shanked so I beat the dude's nose into his brain on the floor. They put me into solitary for 3 months. Still I waited, scaring the guards and other prisoners from how patient I was. Time has no meaning to me.

So I will wait. I will wait until the moment is right and we'll break this system and burn it to the ground.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Ahh now I see the reason for Ocr*ppacare and the IRS getting your medical files. They are used to dealing with a lot of data analysis via taxes so they can easily pinpoint anyone who has had some event in their life that required an anti depressant or tranquilizer.

How many people in the US haven't taken some mood altering drug at some point in their lives now?

Just... wow (puts her tinfoil hat on tighter and STILL refuses to sign up for that cr*ap!)


Lil



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join