Obviously, in the wake of the Texas church shooting, Leftists (who often refuse to give up their own guns and/or their armed security) are again calling for lots and lots of gun control, right up to draconian restrictions and even a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. The Mercury News notes
It’s difficult to keep guns away from ex-cons and the mentally disturbed, but a one-of-a-kind California program is designed to do just that. And in light of the Texas church shooting that left 26 dead, some are debating whether a program like it could have thwarted Devin Kelley’s murderous rampage.
The Armed and Prohibited Persons System (APPS) program, proposed in 1999 and updated in 2006, makes California the first and only state in the country to establish an automated system for tracking firearm owners and to provide the legal authority to proactively disarm convicted criminals, people with certain mental illnesses, and others deemed dangerous.
There’s a few problems with this. First, criminals still get guns. Because they’re criminals. And felons are barred from firearm ownership by every state and the federal government. Who is deemed “dangerous”? That could very much be abused. And, as far as mental illness goes, who decides? And how do we do this when the government, the go to for everything per the Democrats, is incompetent? Stephen Miller lays it out
Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn. – who looks like a pining presidential candidate – was of course out front in a rush to the microphones. He demanded that we all do “something,†without ever actually disclosing what that something might be. Apparently, what he really wants is confiscation of firearms from law-abiding Americans, who are now once again facing media backlash for a crime they had nothing to do with.
But as was revealed Sunday, in what is becoming a common theme in these mass shootings, no amount of background checking would have stopped the shooter in Sutherland Springs, Texas from purchasing his firearms, because the federal government failed to do it’s job properly. It’s not the first time.
While serving in the U.S. Air Force, shooter Devin Patrick Kelley was convicted of domestic assault against his wife. He pleaded guilty to multiple charges stemming from incidents including physically striking his wife and choking and kicking her. He also pleaded guilty to assaulting his stepson, severely enough to crack the young child’s skull.
I’m sure you know the rest: none of this was reported into the FBI database. He escaped from a mental health facility, there was a lot of brouhaha, and this still never ended up in the database. Oh, and let’s not forget that Democrats filibustered legislation that would have potentially stopped Kelley.
Because of a law passed in 1996, it’s illegal for anyone convicted a domestic abuse crime to purchase a firearm, something some of our dutiful lawmakers in Congress seem to not be aware of.
Because Kelley’s court records were never submitted the FBI database, Kelley sailed through several background checks and purchased up to four known firearms. Great work, guys.
Miller goes on to describe many other failures of Government, such as with Dylann Roof and Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho, leading to
The National Rifle Association and lawful gun owners are not involved in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. During the shooting in Texas, a former NRA instructor was instrumental in stopping Kelley’s rampage – a rampage that could have been prevented had our government not been asleep at the wheel again. But sure, let’s turn over our health care to the government now.
If our government cannot perform simple tasks like filling our criminal record forms and entering information into databases, then why in the world would we burden federal employees with new gun laws that do nothing but restrict the constitutional rights of citizens and vendors in full compliance with the law?
The obvious answer here is to enforce the laws on the books, not create new ones that do not work. The “assault rifle” ban did not succeed. Limiting magazine size won’t work, because people will get bigger magazines elsewhere, or even make them. Government was provided with the laws necessary, and they fail. A law is only as good as it’s implementation and enforcement.
I have previously mentioned the HITECH Act, part of the misbegotten porkulus bill of 2009, which requires that all medical records be digitized, supposedly to help physicians get a patient’s past medical records. But if all medical records are digitized — and I’ve found out, personally, that when I wanted my medical records in Pennsylvania sent to my new physician in Kentucky, they would be copied and mailed, not transmitted electronically — then
Big Brotherthe government can search them, looking for any mental health records, right?Your medical records are supposed to be confidential; how would the government use diagnoses of any particular mental health issue, absent a court-ordered committal to a psychiatric hospital, without violating the privacy of medical records?
Dana,
The privacy of medical records is not absolute and arguably should not be.
For example, if a child is showing signs of being abused, don’t we as a society want law enforcement to know? If a spouse is being abused, don’t we want law enforcement to know? If a person comes in with a bullet wound, shouldn’t law enforcement know?
How about a person that is an active carrier of tuberculosis? Or a highly contagious disease? Should we let others suffer and die because that person doesn’t want anyone else to know about their illness?
Mental health issues are slightly different, but don’t we as a society want law enforcement to know when a mentally dangerous person is being released? A person that has threatened themselves or others?
What do you do with a person is suffering from a mental issue and cannot make a medical decision on their care? Should we as a society just let the person suffer? Or should doctors be able to “break” confidentially and talk to family and health care providers about the situation?
I understand and to some extent agree with your concerns, but my point is while you are of sound mind and body, there are others in this world and this country that are not. Hiding the problem and effectually preventing the patient from getting medical care and assistance because they cannot consent to have the information shared is not good public policy, in my opinion.
While there should be a right to privacy for medical issues, no right is absolute in a society.
That is not to say that I want the government searching records without due process. That’s why the laws are written to disclose issues and not have the government search for them.
Dana,
In practice our computer records are horrible. Doctors are not typest and don’t put as much in the record as necessary. Often the only way to tell what the patient has is to look at the drugs. Then it is impossible for a doctor to see records from another computer system. The real purpose for computers is in billing. Administrators are able to grossly inflate a bill with compuyers.
Many people have authority to see your record, especially authority. But your doctor has to jump through hoops to get needed information.
That sounds like a physician problem and not a system problem to me, david.
My father died 30 years ago after a bout with cancer. His records / charts were impossible for anyone to read including other doctors. Things like x-rays took a long time to transfer, even within the same hospital contained in multiple buildings.
Forward to today, and my mother has had several major issues and everything that she has gone through – every surgery, every drug, every diagnosis every x-ray, every CAT scan, etc is available to whatever physician she goes to at the click of a button.
Your experience may differ david and I respect that, but today new doctors and physicians do type more and are more comfortable with computer systems. In addition, 30 years ago, when my dad would see a doctor in the hospital, there would be a nurse that would take notes and if the doctor had anything to add, he would and sign off on it in an illegible scribble. That nurse today takes the notes on a tablet or terminal.
I suspect that the difference you have is where you are and your age rather than you dealing with more modern systems in larger cities and younger people in the health care profession.
T.v.
Why do you make comments about stuff for which you have zero knowledge? Don’t you think I talk to other doctors around the country? Or get records from other doctors? Just for your info you don’t have a clue. Now don’t comment, it just looks stupid.
That is gc, not tv.
I suspect that your definition of “zero knowledge” is “experiences and knowledge that differ yours.”
And your point? You think talking to other doctors invalidates experiences of people who also talk and interact with doctors?
Once again, you don’t think that others get records from doctors?
Is your god complex so large that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong?
Of course I don’t Your god complex won’t let you see that your opinion is based on your experience. You demand that everyone bow down to your experiences while other experiences don’t matter to you.
If my comments look stupid, do you have any idea how you are looking?
Gc,
Pointless discussion. You have absolutely no knowledge of the subject. Go be a jerk with the fool.
We aren’t having a discussion david.
As usual, you think that when you make a comment, people should bow down to your beliefs. That’s not a discussion, that is simply a god complex or someone who can never see another side that disagrees with them.
I am sorry that you have issues with typing and that computerized records are too difficult for you to deal with.
As I said, I suspect that your issue is more with the small town in which you reside and the level of equipment rather than an actual fault in the system. It appears the problem you have is simply defined by PEBOK.
Have a good night.
GC,
You have no idea about any of which you speek. God complex, yes that is me and we’ll earned. You can’t touch it. Your education level and experience adds to nothing. You presume to talk about medical records and it is actually funny considering how little you know. Do I know more, an I your superior? YES. I have been doing medical records for 45 years, computers for 20 in one form or another. I know the laws and who gets the records and how. For 30 years I have testified in court using recvords. So in that respect I am your God. Now crawl back in your hole.