Quote Originally Posted by Waywardson174 View Post
Given the amount of blame our community rightly places on mental incapacity being to blame, what are we willing to do about it?

A friend's proposal is this: Purchase of a firearm requires production of a certificate of mental capacity. Certificates are obtained by conducting a 1 hour interview with a state-certified psychiatrist. This would require development of interview standards and a slew of other intricacies.

An easier to swallow standard for most of us, but less protective: Determine a list of disorders which legally incapacitate the sufferer from firearm purchase. Incorporate mandatory diagnosis reporting to the ATF (with 6 month intervals of retest, re diagnosis permitted).

I propose this because I don't think we can appropriately say that these are the acts of sick people, but not try to limit the access of those people to firearms. I know Lanza didn't buy the guns, but I feel either of these measures are good faith ground we can give to address what we see as the problem without having to endure what we know are ineffectual restrictions on specific firearm types.

Your thoughts please.
Your first option is a permit process to own guns. I would not trust a single 1 hour interview with anyone to determine anything. If going down this route at most make it a CCW level criminal background check not someones arbitrary decision.

Second option is a new list of things that make someone unable to own firearms. There are big privacy issues with the reporting suggested, medical records have limits in how they are shared, mental health doubly so. I could see this as driving people away from treatment and have little faith in the re-testing and re-diagnosis ever clearing the system once in.

Mental health has been an issue in this country for a long time. it is a cost issue; do we pay to treat the sick, and everyone who wants to scam the system, or do we deal with the effects. The decision has been to deal with the effects since they are distributed and localized, often localized to the family of the sick person. Maybe we need to change this.

If there is something on the table to give up, and there may well have to be something, put required security on there. If not in the owners immediate control they must be locked up. It wouldn't have helped this, pretty likely that he would have known any safe code, but is something that would not infringe too heavily.

Something bigger that I see looming, the end of face to face sales. Like it or not, it is a way for unapproved people to get guns. I'd rather see this go than a ban on cosmetics or accessories. (sounds like I'm describing Barbie)