Great points and general threats are very difficult to much of anything, as well as those that are not already being observed by counselors/therapists. And you're right, most wouldn't be honest if they knew they would be reported. This is why it's a frustrating debate/argument. Do we protect the privacy of those that make threats (and by that, I mean those that name specific victims and have a history of violent behavior, which is VERY common in my experience) or do we protect those we know are in danger?

There was one case I worked on where this individual had already been arrested and convicted several times for assault. He had also been arrested/convicted for stalking harassment of a teacher. While on probation, he told his court mandated therapist that as soon as he got off probation, he was going to get a gun and kill his former teacher. The therapist alerted us out of courtesy, but refused to write a report (which the judge needed). Because of that, I had the unfortunate job of telling the victim that she had been threatened (again), but there was nothing we could do. We couldn't get a probation violation, nor a threat charge, nothing... This happens more than people care to think.

I agree with AOII Angel's comments. Mental illness is so complex. Where do you draw a line? How do you analyze whether someone who has had the thought (or even said!) "I wish you were dead" will take that to the point of murdering that person? What about people with mild anxiety disorder who take Xanax?

Bad things are still going to happen. The mentally ill are not always recognized and do not always seek treatment. Not all who do bad things are mentally ill. Mental illness usually presents itself in the early 20s at the earliest, but may not show until much later.

The vast majority of the mentally ill do not commit heinous acts. The vast majority of gun owners don't either.

I think the biggest issue is that everybody wants something fixed which is not fixable.

I think you nailed it in your last two statements.

That is the exact example of a change that should be made. Unfortunately as I said, many therapists are poorly trained. Most have little to no training in forensic psychology so deciding when someone is at risk for violence is not something they are educated to deal with. The prior history of violence is a red flag and should have been the discriminator to put this patient back. That is one most important things in determining risk...a history of violence. I know you have a very hard job. It must be very frustrating. I know NY means well, but their new law will make it very difficult for mental health practitioners, especially as they are a huge talk therapy area. Can you imagine the sheer number of calls they'll get just on the suicidal ideation threats?

Couldn't agree more :) And yes, past history of violent behavior is the biggest risk factor.

And I actually left the field in order to teach. Too many sleepless nights and stress!

Executive orders can't surpass Congress. Only Congress can pass laws. The executive branch must administer those laws, and one of the ways they do that is by administrative rules and regulations and executive orders that fill in details. This is an expected part of the process -- Congress typically doesn't fill in too much detail, but leaves that to the executive branch and specifically authorizes the executive branch to fill in those details through regulations. Also, executive orders can be issued with regard to matters about which the Constitution gives responsibility to the president rather than Congress.

Executive orders and administrative rules and regulations can be challenged in court, just like statutes passed by Congress can be, on the grounds that the president or executive agency exceeded his or its authority and/or attempted to exercise legislative authority.

I very much appreciated the insights of your post, and I tend to agree with this, with perhaps one caveat: I'm willing to give at least some people the benefit of the doubt that they're acting out of sincere motives. But complex problems typically aren't solved by simplistic solutions.

Or perhaps they really don't understand the differences and nuances -- I'll admit I don't completely, though I'm trying to learn and correct that. That said, one undertaking a push for any kind of legislation has an obligation to understand the subject matter.

I'd agree that the 2nd Amendment isn't about recreational hunting, but I think to the extent that hunting may be necessary for food -- and while it's not any more for most Americans, it still may be for some -- it can have some applicability, I think. But I'd agree it's primarily about community defense (militia) and self-defense.

The Obama administration has murdered many more children than Adam Lanza did. The administration should look into gun control for itself first.

I think banning things is great. I work as an addictions therapist and I so glad that heroin is banned. Good thing for that, otherwise people might some how get their hands on drugs.

Just wondering, what the context of this? To what are you referring to?

Thanks

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert...b_2224627.html

"During my recent trip to Pakistan as part of our upcoming documentary film, Drones Exposed, I was struck most by the stories told to me by children who had experienced a U.S. drone strike firsthand. The impact of America’s drone war in the likes of Pakistan and Yemen will linger on, especially for the loved ones of the 178 children killed in those countries by U.S. drone strikes."

I'm not going to give my guns up in a country where the government has such a penchant for violence. Lets get rid of their weapons first and then we'll talk about mine.

Oh, you mean the drone attacks that were started by the CIA in 2004, when Bush was president?

I don't disagree that those are nasty, but if you're going to start playing the blame game, let's make sure everyone gets his fair share.

I'm not sure why you brought that up...

It doesn't damage my case. I'm not a Republican whatsoever. Now, if you give a shit which bureaucrat murdered a bunch of children, be my guest. It doesn't give any of them the right to take away my guns as they murder people. No moral high ground.

The current administration has plans to limit my guns and its based on hypocrisy. This administration loves using guns just as much as the prior administration.

Technically, they aren't using guns. It's apples and oranges. I'd agree that we need to get the hell out of Afghanistan, but that has nothing to do whatsoever with the gun issue in the US.

This doesn't make any sense dude. If we get rid of the country's weapons, how do you expect the country to defend itself from other countries?

What countries do we need to be protected from? We haven't been in a war to protect our borders in a little over 200 years.

Yes, it does.

The point is that the government uses guns and regularly murders people, not only in war but in every day life. Every law requires force of guns. Any banning of weapons to prevent force is inherently hypocritical by the government. The government is force incarnate.