It is time we accept the fact that people kill people. They do so for various biological, psychological and sociocultural reasons.

I do not mean to belittle the loss of life that allegedly took place at the hands of Jared Loughner in Arizona, but we have departed from a rational solution to the matter.

My colleague, Logan Short, advocates for restricting access to guns to individuals who fail a mental health background check.

The problem with Short’s solution is that it will necessitate a revision of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy Rule (HIPAA).

You, like Short, may believe that this is a small price to pay to insure that mentally unstable individuals do not have access to guns, but there are important questions you must answer first.

First, why was the Privacy Rule established?

“My belief is that as managed care started to take over, people became afraid of the power that insurance companies had,” said psychology instructor Phillip Krasula.

Managed care refers to the organization of health care providers and insurers to increase efficiency and lower costs. Organization entails gathering information about your personal health.

Because these entities were sharing your personal health information (PHI), concerns about abuse and the security of that information arose, leading to HIPAA’s Privacy Rule.

Secondly, what is the potential of harm that can accompany the disclosure of PHI?

“If you are diagnosed as a child with schizophrenia, would you want that information available to potential employers?” Krasula asks. “What if you are not experiencing symptoms anymore?”

Although Short is advocating for disclosure in a limited context, it will create an exception to the rule. It has been my observation that when an exception to our rights is made, more will follow.

I am not trying to base my argument on a slippery slope, but considering the questions that one must ask and the potentials for abuse, the potentials are more real than the benefits advocated by Short.

Finally, what good will restricting access to guns do?

Personally, the Second Amendment is my least favorite. My interpretation of it is that we have the right to join the military, but whatever. The fact is that there are many ways to kill people.

There are also more questions that I do not have space to address. Where do we draw the line? If a person sought help for depression because they lost their job or got a divorce, does that exclude them from obtaining a gun?

Most importantly, will somone stay paranoid in order to have a gun, or will they get help so they will not need one?

Short’s plan, above all else, has the potential to deter people from seeking help with their mental disorders, and that solution is the polar opposite of the solution that the Arizona shooting demands.

The debate America should be having is with the sufficiency of access to mental health services and treatment of disorders. And I believe that a determining factor in one’s decision to seek help is that their PHI is kept confidential.