Agreed. And I do feel that if a doctor KNOWS a parent of a mentally ill individual, or any family members of such a person, that it’s OK to have the “discussion” about guns and the BEST plan or consideration of gun safety while at the same time giving 100% consideration to their 2nd amendment rights — (or REFER them to someone who can help them) ...perfectly ok. Just not ok to “report” the family or confiscate their weapons. I know from experience that families do get busy, things can get overlooked and accidents can happen.
I hope to be an NP soon. This will be my approach. However, I doubt it will do much good or catch the ones who are really planning in their own evil hearts, to do such a deed. Will not stop those who are suffering an acute depression either — really doubt it.
There ARE such things as fingerprint technology on gun safes. I would think this would be highly effective. If there are any others, I’d love to learn more.
I do agree we need to get the seriously mentally ill off the streets and in a safe environment.
“I do agree we need to get the seriously mentally ill off the streets and in a safe environment.”
It’s an issue that has concerns both ways - public safety AND essential Liberty. I think the problem is that the pendulum got swung too far away from the public safety side.
That does not mean that we should abandon safegaurds for the individual when it comes to involuntary commitment of an individual to analysis, treatment and if needed confinement.
But we do need to “walk back” SOME of the lines we have drawn protecting the individual for whom mental health analysis, treatment or confinement might be indicated.
And yes, if obtaining those things is not covered in someone’s health insurance (and no, no such coverage should be mandatory by law), then, erring on the side of public safety can mean greater public expense than we are now doing in these cases. If we don’t think it’s worth more POSSIBLE public expense, if necessay, then I would say we’re not serious about doing it at all.