[Catsmine]

people not trusting their duly elected officials or making them accountable to do the job we entrust them with.

The second part of that is where the failure has occurred.

[cdad]

Tal what you have to try to understand is the lines have been drawn in so many directions that it is time to reign them in. You can't have your cake and someone elses too. That is not how it works. First off I agree the mentally ill dont need to be carrying guns around. But one incidence doesnt create a track record. Also with the advent of the HIPPA laws caregivers are reluctent to pass information along without evidence. To gather evidence requires laws to be in place so procedure can be followed. You know this. I have posted before the many articles that have been written about the treatment of the mentally ill and how the pateints rights apply. We need to sort that out first. Sometimes there may be greater requirements without restrictions in place for ownership of firearms. That way your are not truely impinging on someones right to bear arms and at the same time protecting those rights that are already in place.

As far as trusting our politicians I think it goes a long way in saying that if our POTUS doesnt trust them Im sure most citizens have reason for not trusting them also.

[cdad]

I like your post cdad but remember this it is freedom from harm for all. I don't see that lately with the world (not just the US). We need to restrict people who should not have guns from getting them for example. Pretty simple you have mental health issues you don't get a gun. The news is now reporting the moncton shooter had his guns legally and also had mental health issues. THAT IS WRONG! Yes he can still get guns illegally but lets fix the system for getting them legally first then work on the illegal trade.
I will never own a gun or have one in my house due to my issues and because of that lately I don't feel safe. Isn't that sad that due to me being responsible and realizing guns can be dangerous for me (previous suicide attempts is my reasoning) I am at risk of being hurt if someone breaks into our house. Yes it is a real fear for me due to crimes in our area, neighbor being stabbed, and the way the world is going. I have Owen and I am sure he will try to protect me but I don't want him hurt either.

You still have options. Shooting someone is not an option for many people no matter how stable their mental state appears to be. I applaud you for knowing your limitations and respect those limits you have set for yourself. But I do have a suggestion. Have you thought about non leathal weapons ? There is no reason to cross the lethal boundries when you have the right game plan. They do make everything from pepper sprays to guns that shoot pepper balls. Not the best option around Owen. Also they make shotgun shells that fire bean bags. Another nonleathal option that can buy you time to get away and remove yourself from the situation. As you know in your feild of occupation training is always best to achieve your goal. Takeing self defense classes can keep you off the victim list and provide you with the level of comfort you require to feel safe no matter where you go.

[talaniman]

I won't acknowledge/concede that lines have been drawn or needs to be reigned in to further the debate, and we have many incidence of crazy people killing folks not just one and that looks to continue. All options are on the table, including reporting dangerous people, be they family, police, or a doctor.

[cdad]

Tal your missing the point here. If things are going to change then you first have to work with what you have and examine it for content. If you dont wish to do that then your only going to end up frustrated banging your head against the wall.

You can't expect doctors or mental health professionals to report anyone but the worst of the worst because their hands are tied. To change that will take an examination of the system that is applied to the individual. If you put the goal before the process then your going to force that outcome rather then building a solution that can work for everyone. Get the blinders off and start looking around at what you really want and how to achieve it for everyone rather then running with such a narrow focus that your not helping anyone.

[talaniman]

Some states report mentally dangerous people to a central data base, and some don't and that's already happening, so its not with blinders on that I made that suggestion CD, just trying to expand the conversation beyond the right to bear arms.

How the violent mentally ill can buy guns - CNN.com

Federal law makes it illegal to sell or give a firearm to anyone who "has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution."
Federally licensed gun shops must use the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS. Private sellers and gun shows have no background check requirement.
But information in the NICS is incomplete, particularly where mental health records are concerned, investigations found. That's because of what some of the system's critics call a huge legal loophole in the background check laws that put "guns in the hands of killers," according to a study conducted by a group of mayors.
The system is only as good as the data. And "the data is the real problem," said Mark Glaze, the director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, an organization whose recent in-depth study found millions of mental health records were missing from the federal background check system.
"It's an unsatisfying answer, since people always want to blame the soft federal laws or blame the gun lobby," he said. "But if you have ever worked around a state legislature, they'll tell you there is no money and no time to improve this kind of reporting.

[cdad]

Here is the rest of the story:
BACKGROUND
Since 1968, federal law has banned gun sales or transfers to, among others, anyone adjudicated as “a mental defective” or committed to a mental institution (18 USC § 922(d)(4) & 27 CFR § 478.11). Since 1993, it has required (1) states to report people prohibited from acquiring or possessing firearms to the NICS database and (2) federal firearm licensees (gun dealers), before completing firearm transfers, to check the database to determine if prospective purchasers are disqualified from receiving firearms under state or federal law. But a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court ruling effectively made state participation in NICS voluntary. In Printz v. U.S. (521 U.S. 898 (1997)), the court ruled as unconstitutional, under the 10^th Amendment, federal attempts to compel states to contribute to a federal regulatory program, absent funding.
Citing mostly privacy concerns and, in some cases, state laws that prohibit sharing of mental health data, more than half the states have declined to provide, or provide only limited, mental health data to the NICS database, according to a 1997 FBI press release. California, Colorado, Utah, and Virginia are among the states that currently require the reporting of such data to a state database, the NICS database, or both. Illinois also will require the reports, beginning June 1, 2008.


GUN LAWS AND MENTAL HEALTH REPORTS TO STATE AND FEDERAL AUTHORITIES

[Catsmine]

California, Colorado, Utah, and Virginia are among the states that currently require the reporting of such data to a state database, the NICS database, or both

It is interesting to note that of those states mentioned, only one permits concealed carrying of firearms on school grounds and only one has never had a school shooting. How strange that both are the same state.