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.

 

Exclusive: 2 million mentally ill people missing from national gun check system

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Exclusive: 2 million mentally ill people missing from national gun check system


www.rawstory.com

Records of at least two million dangerously mentally ill individuals whose names should already be in the nation’s criminal background check system remain missing.

Tens of thousands of people's records that would fall into other legally disqualifying categories in the background check system are also missing, with convicted felons high on the list. Yet Raw Story confirmed with experts on gun control that records of those whose mental illness has been legally determined to be a danger to themselves or others far outnumber the unreported information of individuals in other prohibiting cate
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   
This is a subject certainly worth discussion, and one that I'm sure will create a deep divide in the pros and cons for such measures to be changed and implemented.

WHY are all of these allegedly mentally unstable and violent offenders missing from the list?

While I do feel that it may not be the best idea to hand over weapons to those with a history of mental illness and / or a history of violence, I do wonder if such extensive background checks and regulations are actually going to PREVENT them from purchasing a weapon anyway? Obviously legally, yes, but if an offender wants a weapon, they are going to get one regardless, through black-market channels.

This would, however, make it more difficult for them to get them through LEGAL channels, which would be a step in the right direction, IF they do indeed have a history of violent behavior.

But another aspect to consider in this is, what exactly constitutes a person being labeled mentally ill, and who MAKES that determination? Is something like being on prescribed meds a determining factor? And in our medication-promoting society, would this wind up BEING a discourse for limiting who can, and can not own a firearm?

www.rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 10-2-2011 by DimensionalDetective because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   
? if they know that a certain number of names are missing....don't they know the names? Can't they just add the

"missing" list to the gun control list? it can't be that hard to cross reference if they don't. Thats what all those

great bureaucrats are for.

but you are correct, if someone blacklisted wants a gun, they will be able to get one.

eh, not too worried



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


I love how they try to make it sound like the NRA some how did a bait and switch. The NRA supported the bill to financially penalize states that do not comply with submitting records. The supported the bill under a Democratic congress. That was the congress responsible for okaying the funding. If they failed to do so it was a failure of the democrat controlled congress. You can not lay that at the feet of the NRA.

Also the only reason that a persons name was kept on record permenantly before is because congress failed to fund the program that allowed for appealing your name. It was the law that after completing court mandated therapy or being cleared by a doctor you could have your name taken off. That was always the law. The so called concession to the NRA was a way to actually make the government paper pushers follow the law.

I am glad that the Brady Campaign has come out and said that this is not the NRA's fault. I think that the fact Mayor Bloomberg is lining up far left of even the Brady Campaign is very telling. To me it seems like it tells us the many mayors that resigned from MAIG were right. Bloomber is dead set on diminishing second amendment rights for all.

I wish I could still find the link I had to a story about the effectiveness of the NICS before the "improvement act." Even before the act there were studies that showed the NICS program working at better than 98%. In other words less than two percent of the time did an inelligible person get a gun. Tell me one other government program that is that effective? Now they provide more funding to help states supply records and it still isn't good enough for the anti-gun crowd.

One thing to remember when reading these articles, Bloomberg believes getting a speeding ticket should disqualify you from owning a gun. So, when you see him come up talking about gun control remember his definition of "reasonable gun control"


edit on 10-2-2011 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   
This is no accident, this is done for a few different reasons, to keep the false flags and crimes going and people bowing down to nwo and big brother, or to build their SS private army.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Both Helmke and McCarthy’s office said that they have seen no evidence of the NRA outwardly opposing the funding.

“In fact,” Tarek added, “the NRA has been consistent in calling for full NICS funding."

Brady Center communications director Caroline Brewer underscored the point.

“You know, this law is part of the Brady Bill and it’s very, very important to us,” she told Raw Story. “So if we had any indication, we would not be shy about letting everybody know that the NRA was standing in the way of this bill being fully funded and effective.”


The NRA isn't the scapegoat this time. It's CONgress.

Mandating without funding.... guess what happens... FAIL.

The federal government is bullying states and this is the result of one aspect of that bullying.

I can't help but wonder.... how do they KNOW that 2 million people are missing... what data set is it that they have reviewed and calculated that was NOT shared with those responsible for the database? And if they could do it, why couldn't the federal government have done it in the first place?



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


Oh no, the gov cannot find more people to kill, oh what a shame.

The gov and there obsession with targeting and murdering anyone, lol.

Remember people the police are organising murder for friends, and they do this alot. Notice how crimes against innocent people are never solved by them.

Money talks.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 



But another aspect to consider in this is, what exactly constitutes a person being labeled mentally ill, and who MAKES that determination? Is something like being on prescribed meds a determining factor? And in our medication-promoting society, would this wind up BEING a discourse for limiting who can, and can not own a firearm?


You bring up some interesting points and pose some relevant questions from this angle.

Is clinical depression a mental illness? Most experts would say yes, and more than likely over 10% of Americans are currently on anti-depressants now to "treat" this condition. However, many general practictioners, NOT psychiatrists prescribe these sometimes dangerous meds that induce harm against self or others, bolded mine:


The number of Americans using antidepressants doubled in only a decade, while the number seeing psychiatrists continued to fall, a study shows.

About 10% of Americans — or 27 million people — were taking antidepressants in 2005, the last year for which data were available at the time the study was written. That's about twice the number in 1996, according to the study of nearly 50,000 children and adults in today's Archives of General Psychiatry. Yet the majority weren't being treated for depression. Half of those taking antidepressants used them for back pain, nerve pain, fatigue, sleep difficulties or other problems, the study says.

Among users of antidepressants, the percentage receiving psychotherapy fell from 31.5% to less than 20%, the study says. About 80% of patients were treated by doctors other than psychiatrists.


www.usatoday.com...

Which begs the question; do "regular" general doctors report these prescriptions to anyone other than insurance companies and do they pass it on?

Or are only psychiatrists worthy of making such an assessment?

Are anti-depressants so "mainstream" now, that only anti-psychotic type drugs are the only ones reported?

Definitely more data is needed on how all of this is determined in who and who cannot buy firearms legally....

S&F as usual;
I agree that it is an issue *very* worthy of discussion.









edit on 10-2-2011 by sonjah1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


The NRA always supported this system as far as I can recall. It's one of the reasons I cant support the NRA. Call me unreasonable.


If it worked the way it was advertised then the Brady's couldnt have this as a "gun control failure" to constantly beat us over the heads with.

You give into compromise, they make sure it doesnt work, blame you, then they cry and cry until you give them everything they ask for.

This is why compromise doesnt ever work. Compromise just leaves the quarreling parties unsatisfied and eventually they flame up the war all over again and keep doing so until they either die or get everything they ask for.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


I can't really argue on this... fact is, where political expedience and theater are involved, nothing ever works the way its supposed to because the people involved in the compromise are compromising on their own behalf, for their own political furtherance or benefit... not ours.

They can pay lip service to warm and fuzzy platitudes all they want, if their aim was as true as they proclaim, we wouldn't be in half as bad a mess as we are now.

It's not about us, or our safety, it's about them, what they want, and what they can get in exchange for what they control.
edit on 10-2-2011 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Its not really a compromise when you are the only one giving up something. The Anti gunners want there to be no firearms for anyone other than government goons. They are out nothing if they concede to "allow" some level of restrictions but some level of ownership. It is only those who have invested in firearms, who have passed firearms to their decendants, who care about liberty that have given up something. We have given up our freedoms and our investments so that the Antis can feel safe. We have given up liberty for security.

well thats not going to happen anymore.....



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective

This is a subject certainly worth discussion, and one that I'm sure will create a deep divide in the pros and cons for such measures to be changed and implemented.


Not really


USAtoday - States bolster FBI gun database - 2008


We're missing 80 to 90% of the mentally ill. … That's scary," says Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a gun-control advocacy group. Helmke says the missing records stem from "the inertia of bureaucracy" rather than strong ideological opposition.


LA Time - Gun-buyer screening gets stiffer- 2008


It seeks to expand the federal database used to screen gun buyers to include the estimated 2 million-plus people, including felons and the mentally ill, who are ineligible to buy firearms.


The article posted is BS and is politically motivated. They dragged stats up from 2008 in an effort to take advantage of the incident in Tuscon. The Rep from New York is anti gun ownership period. Her husband was shot and killed some years back, and so its been her quest to abolish the 2nd Amendment (because she is detached from reality and does not understand the concept that people are labeled as criminals for a reason - they dont obey the law).

Right after the Tuscon shooting she started beating her war drums to exploit the situation. It did not go over all that well, and people said she was over reating. Now that its died down some, she is at it again. The stats in the OP article are taken from the LA Times article and the USAToday article from 2008.

When an article talking about gun control says:


Yet Raw Story confirmed with experts on gun control that records of those whose mental illness has been legally determined to be a danger to themselves or others far outnumber the unreported information of individuals in other prohibiting categories.


The experts refered to in the article is actually

Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a gun-control advocacy group


Normally I keep an open mind since you post some good stuff.. however, this post is so far off base and smacks of fearmongering an lies, it pisses me off to no end.

I have never had an issue with NICS in terms of whats being described here and the same goes for our State system that tracks that stuff as well.



edit on 10-2-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy - (D) New York

Early Life


On December 7, 1993, her husband, Dennis, was killed and her son, Kevin, severely injured, on a Long Island Rail Road commuter train at the Merillon Avenue station, when a mass murderer, Colin Ferguson, opened fire on random unarmed passengers.[4] Ferguson killed six and wounded 19 others.[5] McCarthy responded to the crime by launching a campaign for additional gun control that eventually propelled her to Congress in 1996 on the Democratic ticket.


Political Career


Gun ControlMcCarthy is one of the most vocal advocates in the nation for gun control. In 1997, she sponsored a bill requiring trigger locks on guns.[7] She introduced legislation to ban the sale of guns to tourists to the United States after the 1997 Empire State Building shooting. Because of this, she reported receiving several death threats.[8] Later that same year, McCarthy opposed a Treasury bill provision that allowed importing weapons that are banned for sale in the U.S.[9] In the aftermath of the Columbine High School massacre, McCarthy submitted a bill requiring firearms be child-resistant and to add obstacles to the purchase of guns by young adults[10] along with regulating gun shows.[11]

After the Assault Weapons Ban expired in September 2004, McCarthy introduced the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 to reauthorize it in February 2007. McCarthy's new version would ban 65 models of firearms, as opposed to the previous ban's 19 models. In addition, McCarthy's law would ban any semiautomatic rifle, shotgun or handgun that was "originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General."[12] A journalist asserted that the bill has little chance of passage and criticized it as a "fund-raising" bill.[13] McCarthy frames the reintroduction of the ban as law enforcement protection, though active, off-duty and retired police officers would be exempt from the gun bans.[12]

On the April 18, 2007 showing of MSNBC's program Tucker, Tucker Carlson interviewed McCarthy concerning the Virginia Tech massacre and her proposed reauthorization of the Assault Weapons Ban. He asked her to explain the need to regulate barrel shrouds, one of the many provisions of the Act. She responded that more importantly the legislation would ban large capacity "clips" (sic) used in the Virginia Tech massacre and that the class of guns chosen were those used by gangs and police killers. However, the Virginia Tech shooter did not have high capacity magazines; they were the AWB compliant 10 round variety. After admitting that she did not know what a barrel shroud was, McCarthy incorrectly stated, "I believe it is a shoulder thing that goes up".

On Monday, April 16, 2007, after the shootings at Virginia Tech, and after President Bush's press secretary Dana Perino said, "The president believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed,"[14] McCarthy issued a press release calling for "legislation to prevent further acts of gun violence."[15] Because the Virginia Tech massacre gunman, Seung-Hui Cho, was able to pass the background check to legally buy a firearm despite his prior mental health issues because of inconsistent sharing of records between the federal and state governments,[16] the House of Representatives passed legislation (H.R. 2640, the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007) introduced by McCarthy, with the support of the National Rifle Association and later signed into law by President Bush to remedy this.[16][17] McCarthy indicated she wanted later to revisit the issue of doing background checks at gun shows.[17]



edit on 10-2-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Interesting...So in a sense this is bureaucratic scare-mongering and disinfo being fed into the media complex to grab more guns?

Can't say I would be shocked with that then.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Interesting...So in a sense this is bureaucratic scare-mongering and disinfo being fed into the media complex to grab more guns?

Can't say I would be shocked with that then.


Thats my view on this whole thing. As I said ive never had any issues with NICS or our State system for background checks. With the recycled information from 2008 rewritten into a 2011 article, coupled with her first attempt to exploit Tuscon.... It just looks that way.

Giving her the benefiet of the doubt for a moment, its entirely possible gun control groups are exploiting the situation, and are using the Rep because of her experience with gun crimes, to push the agenda harder. I know they were wanting to reinstate the brady bill, and tahnkfully it did not pass when it expired.

I dont care much for blind sources either, especially when statistics are used to paint a picture. To me it comes across as wanting people to take an intrest, but not dig to hard.

No offense to you or anything.. as I said you have good threads and I enjoy debating in them.. This one though just torqued me the wrong way.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


None taken! I often get an alternative viewpoint to things from you, and open my mind up to differing viewpoints and possibilities. And THIS is one of the reasons I am HERE on ATS for.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Well, yes, by all means add these names to the "Don't Buy" List, but
since Justices Scalia and Alito brought ALL gun control under suspicion
in the Heller and McDonald Supreme Court Decisions (Justice Scalia's
comments that gun control was still valid were unsupported by any
Constitutional argument), don't be too surprised if sometime in the
future the List gets thrown out. All this ignores the underlying
problem: Too many guns, too easy access. After two decades of watching
ineffective leadership from DC on these issues (and I understand they're
all afraid of the NRA) I've had enough and am running for Congress
to introduce appropriate Resolution and Legislation to Repeal the Right
to Keep and Bear Arms, including the Second Amendment. As part of that
I've been collecting links to web articles and lead comments advocating
repeal at www.mjbarkl.com... . On that page I also set out
the resolution and legislation. Join me. Run for Congress. Fix this.
Best wishes, --Mike



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join