This is such a complicated topic. Our politicians want the quick headline, so lets just pass a law against guns and these horrifying incidents will stop. The reality is that no gun law itself will prevent these. Someone bent on doing this will find a way..

All that said, I am a gun owner with a carry permit and I see no problem with background checks. I also don't see the need for assault weapons. Alli we are talking about is where the appropriate line is between personal and military weapons. I can't own a rocket launcher or a stinger missile today. So lets not get pretend there aren't already limitations on the second amendment.

I do believe there are people who shouldn't have access to guns. Hopefully we can figure out how to do that without scapegoating entire groups.

Kristen, you make some good points. From a legal viewpoint, the only legitimate concern is whether a person is suffering from a mental disease or defect that makes him a substantial danger to others. Very few mental disorders meet this criterion.

I see three big problems here.

1. The definition of "mental disorder" is both culture-bound and protean. A hundred years ago, people were melancholy or shy, but nobody thought of calling them "mentally ill." Now they are depressed or suffering from social anxiety disorder. As a result, the great majority of the population can be defined (if we include the laundry list from the DSM) as having, or having had, some kind of "mental disorder" at some time in their lives. (Depressed when your mother died, going through menopause, after childbirth, or after a divorce? PTSD after an accident or military service? Drank too much at some time in your life? etc.) Only question is whether they have been diagnosed with one or not.

2. Diagnoses are of extremely poor quality. Instead of following standard diagnostic protocols, a large number of "mental health professionals" (a term that include peoples with master's degrees in counseling, yikes) make diagnoses based on feelings, hunches, and so forth. So diagnoses are unreliable. A good example is the over-diagnosis of bipolar disorder, see e.g. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090729100936.htm

(Third point in next comment owing to text limit.)

(Continued from previous comment)

3. In any disorder there is a continuum of severity, and lawyers and legislators, who generally have the math skills of rodents, are especially inept at dealing with continuous functions. Along with probability theory, statistics, and the sciences in general.

And finally, I would add that unless you are a criminal, your odds of being a homicide victim are minute: http://troy.patch.com/blog_posts/relax-youre-not-gonna-be-shot

Which leads me to conclude that people who are obsessively worried about being a firearms homicide victim may, themselves, be suffering from a mental disorder.

Kristen,

Thanks for sharing your personal story and how it impacts the debate that is going on. I am sure it is tough, but important, for you to share these intimate thoughts and personal perspective. It truly does give a real objective other perspective to the debate.

I agree with Doug, the politicians are only going for the quick hit, not the true long term tough decision that will have a real impact on this issue. We need politicians who are looking at the long term, not the sound bites.

However, I appreciate your personal perspective and sharing very intimate information. It does bring light to the situation and I hope all have an open mind to listen to your perspective as they weigh in on this issue.

Kristen, Daryl and Chuck I have enjoyed reading your posts. Obviously this is a difficult, complex social issue and finding an answer to satisfy everyone will be challenging if not impossible. I hope our elected officials do not make knee-jerk simple fix reactions and take the time to assemble legislation that will solve most, if not all the issues.

I have been in a somewhat different position -- trying to help an adult relative get mental illness treatment. I understand that there have been abuses in the past that warrant not giving family members carte blanche re: access to their relatives' medical histories, etc., but it is nearly impossible to get help for someone who does not see that she needs it. In my case, both my husband & brother are medical professors and physicians and STILL it was nearly impossible. I hate to think of what families with fewer advantages go through -- or rather, I can guess -- they give up.

Now that my son has joined the Army, I am very concerned about possibly having to go through the same maze if he has PTSD.

My relative was sometimes violent. We did not have guns in the house & so the harm she did involved bruising or cuts, but nothing fatal. Had she been inclined to get a weapon, I would have wanted some legal vehicle available to keep her from doing so. Family members are probably more at risk than the general public. I don't think this relative was ever out to get me or anyone else in the family (with the possible exception of my father). But her moods, including her rages, came on quite suddenly & whoever was in the way was at some risk.

For the record, there were 16 mass shootings in the US in 2012 (http://www.thenation.com/blog/171774/fifteen-us-mass-shootings-happened-2012-84-dead#). Your article spoke of highly publicized ones -- even so, I believe there were more than 2.

One other point: the current mental health system is based on the premise that you have to know you need help to get it, even though a symptom of many mental illnesses is that you do not understand that you need help.You have to know how to navigate all the complex barriers our society puts up for getting help when your mind is not in the best shape, by definition.

At one point, my relative was certain that God had told her how to solve poverty in the world, especially for children, that she had written this solution down on an envelope, but she could not find the envelope. Her anguish over that envelope's loss led her to call 911, but that level of psychosis, absent a threat to her own life or another's, was not enough to get her treatment without her consent.

At one point, my relative was seeing a psychologist & she signed the forms necessary for him to talk with me. However, those forms have to be renewed annually, and they lapsed without my being aware of it (the relative lived in a different state, so I was not involved weekly or anything). At that point, the psychologist was not even allowed to call me to tell me that the papers had lapsed although I was trying to get in touch with him because I was concerned that the relative was on the verge of becoming homeless. These are the kinds of barriers I'm talking about.

To the best of my knowledge, I made one small aside re: guns in my comments. My main point was that it's very difficult to get mental illness properly treated whether you are suffering from the disease or whether you are concerned about a family member with a disease -- even if you're the next of kin. I said NOTHING about rifles or assault weapons. Your reaction says more about your mind than what I wrote.

That said, let me be clear. I have lived with a person who was sometimes psychotic. When that person was BOTH psychotic AND in a rage, that person could be violent. When that person was violent, she used the weapons available to her. Since we did not have guns in our home, those weapons were her fists, her fingernails, objects she found to throw, and, on one occasion, a kitchen knife. No one was ever killed, if for no other reason than those weapons rarely kill or if they do, you have to be at very close proximity to the person wielding them. We were all good at running when we had to. No one ever called the police. Blood & constant wariness, but not stats, were left behind.

Based on my lived experience, I do think that if someone seeks to get a gun, law enforcement officials ought to provide people who know things about that person -- such as the things that 4 members of my family had direct, personal knowledge of with our relative -- an opportunity for a hearing where their concerns could be considered.

I have worked with the mentally ill for 37 years and cared for them on a daily basis. Here are some facts. Usually as with most people somewhere in their history is the possibility of violence and someone has seen it witnessed it or been a part of it. But was either ignored or they did not reach out at all. families are the last to realize the illness unless its major. We could help our innocent society by making professionals more responsibile for the care they give . The government handed the monies to mental health and they seem to be their own boss as to who gets help and how much. we will need to have those in charge that do not have these diagnosis and those who can balance that society should have first priority to safety. A little less for the sick who cannot help themselves and a lil more consideration for our babies the vuneralble of societies. There are several dynamics involved to help us but get the money under someone elses control so it doesn't become their concern human nature can be a mess.

Blame the item, not the person...typical bureaucracy at work. The worst school rampage in US history happened right here in Bath. MI, killing around 36 people. Weapon of choice? Pipe bombs. Should we ban house piping at all hardware stores? Makes no sense you say? Oklahoma bombing killed 168 people, and many children. Weapon? Uhaul and fertilizer. Ban them? Drunk drivers kill FAR more people and children daily, over and over. Weapons? Autos and alcohol. Ban them?? Nope. Same logic applies.
I can't stand the question "why does anyone NEED an assault rifle?" IMO, it's not about NEED. Why does anyone need a Corvette/Viper/Lambo that goes 200 MPH? That is illegal to do everywhere I know, and yes, they do kill people (in wrecks from incompetent drivers driving at high speeds). Point is, it's not entirely about need, but about want. As a law-abiding, upstanding, no-criminal-record, background-checked citizen, why can't I? If it's good enough for police use to protect me, it's good enough for me to use when the police aren't there (which they will NEVER be with me when I may need protection).
Fallacy of "assault" weapons, they do not shoot any faster than regular old hunting rifles, unless ILLEGALLY modified as is currently against the law, which we know criminals do not follow. Bans were tried before, with no change in results over a DECADE. What makes anyone think it'll be different now?

CRIMINALS follow a path of least resistance, such a school full of kids - or a movie theater - with unarmed adults? Not much. See the pattern for what it is... gun free zones KILL.

I wonder Kristen and Carol, if some distinction can be made between the truely dangerous, violent individuals who are mentally ill and those that are taking anti-depressants or anti-anxiety medication. As Judy mentioned, if there is something in a person's medical history that they have exhibited violence and a psychosis, or that family members sought help for their violence, or sought to commit them...could that be checked if such a person were to seek to buy a gun, or if a family member that they resided with wanted to buy a gun (make sure such an individual is following safety protocals). There's lots of complexity here with possible violations of privacy, and putting people on databases on the basis of someone's opinion of serious mental illness, is it the road to Big Brother?

Carol, my sympathies, I can imagine the difficulties in getting help for a relative in this age of HIPAA. I probably could not get any info on my college age child's health condition if I wanted to, even though they're still my dependent...need to get a power of health attorney for him to sign, but how would you get a resistant, psycotic, mentally ill relative to agree to that...probably need to get appointed guadian, examinations, court, lawyers, red tape..how many people would do that for a distant relative in the interest of the safety of society?

The second amendment is a political right to self-defense against all manner of criminal activity. It has nothing to do with deer hunting. This amendment protects ownership of military small arms. Today this means semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines - not flintlock muskets. FBI statistics say, I believe, that more murders are committed with hammers and clubs than with such rifles.

One of the problems with this issue is that the Democrat Politicians are focusing on civilian mental health issues only! Last year, there were a minimum of (2) cases where the NYPD shot into a crowd & wounded over 13 bystanders. Why hasnt Governor Cuomo ever addressed these mass shootings by police? You have to remember that the NYPD has advanced weapons training & shoot weekly. There is absolutely no reason for them killing innocent civialians other than a lapse in judgement. When the Obama Administration wants to begin to address police mental health issues I will consider contacting the NRA. Until then, I will put all of my political & financial support behind the NRA in fighting every measure that the Democrats & the Obama Administration enacts! Any Democrat or Republican that signs the assault weapons ban will be recalled! Period!!!!

Just read AP article that NY state is about to pass a legislation. One of the provisions (specifically dealing with mental illness and guns) is:

".... a therapist who believes a mental health patient made a credible threat to use a gun illegally would be required to report it to a mental health director who would have to notify the state. A patient's gun could be taken from him or her"

Would be interested in Kristen's and Carol's opinions given their familiarity with the mental health care system.

uptil I looked at the check which was of $4584, I be certain that my brothers friend woz like they say actualy bringing home money part time from there pretty old laptop.. there moms best frend haz done this for only about 10 months and resantly took care of the dept on there home and bourt a great new Acura. I went here, http://pie21.ℂom

Be careful what you ask for. This can be a slippery slope. Who decides if you're mentally ill or not? Where do they draw the line? What if someone overheard you say..."If he cheats on me I'm going to kill him", and reports you? Once they determine you're too unstable to own a gun, how will that affect your employment?

How long before government might require a mental evaluation before you're allowed to obtain a drivers license, or be approved for a loan/mortgage? What about marriage, having children? Will you be allowed to vote? Think it can't happen? Think again!

Re: Carol's relative who has not managed -yet- to harm the family. She wants the right to be consulted if that person seeks a weapon. Yet she says: No one ever called the police.
Why? You were assaulted and already attacked with a knife. Dead is dead. I suppose you will be forced to call the police when Uncle Harry had a chef's knife stuck in his chest. Just be aware if police come out and your relative is waving a knife around they will shoot her dead. That's the sort of outcome you get when you put off dealing with it until it can't be ignored any longer.