|
Tuesday, July 15, 2008 3:00 AM
E-mail to a friend
By Scott Mooneyham
RALEIGH — It was among the more ludicrous arguments made on the Senate floor in a while.
Sen. Doug Berger, a Franklin County Democrat, was speaking in favor of an amendment by the Senate's other Berger, minority leader Phil, that would water down a bill designed to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.
Doug Berger's argument: What about someone who had just lost a spouse, who was now depressed, so depressed in fact that they wouldn't eat? Their depression and refusal to eat causes such alarm that a relative seeks to have the person involuntarily committed. A judge decides to commit the person to treatment, but on an outpatient basis.
Shouldn't that person be allowed a gun to protect himself or herself, Berger asked.
Sure, that's the type of depressed, despondent person that society needs to be encouraging to carry a gun.
The legislation, which eventually passed the Senate in its watered-down form, would require that anyone involuntarily committed to an in-patient facility for mental illness be reported to a national database used by sheriffs to deny gun permits.
The amendment will probably result in many of those committed on an outpatient basis from not being listed in the database. It would be required only if the person is deemed to be "a danger to self or others."
In theory, such people aren't committed on an outpatient basis. Magistrates and judges should commit them to in-patient facilities. Of course, we know that overcrowding is never a problem in North Carolina's psychiatric hospitals.
And in theory, Seung-Hui Cho shouldn't have been committed on an outpatient basis.
He was. His name was never entered into the national database. He bought two handguns. He killed 32 people at Virginia Tech.
North Carolina and Virginia law are and were different regarding involuntary commitments. Still, is it such a high standard that people who are involuntary committed, under any circumstances, should be prohibited from purchasing handguns?
Politicians, though, in this state and others, have always been cowed by the gun lobby. That gun lobby, led by the National Rifle Association, feeds off of tragedies like the Virginia Tech shooting.
The merry-go-round is now predictable: a tragic shooting by a madman at a school or mall claims innocent lives; news stories reveal how easily the person obtained a gun, despite the signs of mental illness or other potentially disqualifying factors; liberal politicians call for reform; the NRA whips up its members into a lather, implying the guvmit will be knocking down their doors and seizing their guns at any moment; the checks flow into NRA headquarters; the politicians back down from restrictions that most Americans consider reasonable and wouldn't touch law-abiding, competent gun owners.
NRA president Wayne LaPierre goes to bed in his million dollar home; NRA members go to bed $25 poorer.
And in legislatures around the country, including North Carolina's, legislators look for their spines and listen to ludicrous arguments.
- - -
Scott Mooneyham is a columnist for Capitol Press Association.
What do you think? Post your comment below.
Comments
SalisburyPost.com is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse.
SalisburyPost.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not SalisburyPost.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please send us an email to webmaster@salisburypost.com with the article title and offensive post's contents and we will review it for possible removal.
Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.
James Cleymore
Is there a bigger idiot than Scott Mooneyham? : Thursday, July 31, 2008 10:10 PM
I've been on the Scott Mooneyham diet. It's kind of like bulimia. Every time I read anything written by this wussbag, I throw up. I've lost 10 pounds already. What an idiot.
Report Abuse
Kenneth David Hall Fairview Park, Ohio
How do you eat an elephant? : Thursday, July 17, 2008 1:02 PM
One bite at a time. If it's any consolation, Mr. Mooneyham, they'll probably come back and sweep up outpatients later, if they can get people paying attention to something else. That's how citizen disarmers work. Then, when the folks who have been trying to pathologize conservatism (they've been trying since 1950 or so, see T.W. Adorno) finally pull it off, there will at last be nothing between you and your Brave New World. Oh, wait, yes there will: you'll still have to Come and Take Them. Good luck.
Report Abuse
The Stripping of Rights : Thursday, July 17, 2008 12:06 PM
So we should just strip a person of their rights without due process of law, just because they are going through a hard time? Maybe if a person is despondent or depressed, that person's family and friends should take responsibility for getting them through the rough patch, instead of depending on the government to do it by treating the person like a criminal.
Report Abuse
CCW4ME
A ludicrous gun argument carries the day : Wednesday, July 16, 2008 2:22 PM
As long as those folks experiencing mental or emotional problems lose ALL of their right I see no problem with denying them their Second Amendment rights too. But to single out gun rights as somehow different from the right to vote or drive a car or get married or whatever is an example of hoplophobic paranoia.
Report Abuse
Harold A. Maio
"the" as a misleading metaphor : Tuesday, July 15, 2008 8:04 AM
Laws have to be carefully written to address specific issues. Keeping guns from a "the" mentally ill requires clear definition of which of "the" mentally ill. "People who have been involuntarily committed" is a clear beginning. But our responsibility does not end there. The commitment must also stand up: Many people involuntarily committed for examination are later released, the commitment does not stand. The specific massacre at Virginia Tech was preventable. Mr.Cho had presented sufficient evidence that he was troubled, that suspending him from school was a viable consideration, and not based upon medical records, based upon specific documented events, acts. Virginia Tech put in place responses should a similar situation present itself. Among them was immediate intervention by their mental health professionals, so eight months later, when Daniel Kim threatened suicide, and was reported to the administration, one expected that the new policy would be respected. It was not, Mr. Kim, using a gun,ended his life there. (Citation: http://notsocalm.wordpress.com/2008/01/18/the-sad-success-of-daniel-kim/) His death was not widely reported, the failure of Virginia Tech a second time was not reported. We have much to learn, and lives are at stake. Harold A. Maio Advisory Board American Journal of Psychiatric Rehabilitation Board Member Partners in Crisis Former Consulting Editor Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal Boston University Language Consultant UPENN Collaborative on Community Integration of Individuals with Psychiatric Disabilities Home: 8955 Forest St Ft Myers FL 33907 239-275-5798 khmaio@earthlink.net
Report Abuse
Bruce Jackson - Stafford Virginia
Do you drive a car? : Tuesday, July 15, 2008 6:30 AM
If you drive a car then you ARE a danger to yourself and others! Also, there are some mental health folks out there that are anti-gun and would gladly deem anyone who wanted a gun as sick. You might see this as "A ludicrous gun argument" but gun owners have to think this way. Remember, we are fighting the crowd that tried to say even home schoolers' homes were covered under the gun-free school zone act and that you could not have a gun within 1000 feet of a home school. Now you try to map THAT one out! You could be a felon just for keeping a gun locked up in your house. How about we bring this home to you -- You get sued and fired for writting and printing an inflammatory rant in your column. Should you never be allowed to write again?
Report Abuse
|