Mentally impaired and guns


PDA






browneu
February 3, 2013, 11:48 AM
This thought argument was taken BBC from David Webb.

Should guns be taken from the mentally impaired? If so, regardless of reason, Gabby Giffords is mentally impaired because of her condition. Should her and her husband's gun be removed from the house?

Interesting argument. I say no because she's not mentally insane and could possibly pass a background check.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

If you enjoyed reading about "Mentally impaired and guns" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
gym
February 3, 2013, 11:54 AM
I think she would be classified as disabled. It would have no bearing imo

browneu
February 3, 2013, 11:56 AM
You're right she'd be physically impaired. Sorry.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

ID-shooting
February 3, 2013, 12:00 PM
My whole issue with this line of thinking is who gets to determine what "mentally fit" is. That and the whole "innocent till proven guilty" bit.

While not a psych, I do work in healthcare and do MH screening for depression and PTSD for vets. If a guy has never commited a crime and is felling a bit "down" or still has some disturbing nightmares and gets some anxiety in crowds or closed in spaces, should "we" takes his guns away?

Then again, if there are warning signs and noone acts on them, and the person goes on a rampage, what could have been done different?

Watched a guy on COPS last night. Shot some rounds into his door while he was cleaningnhis gun. Or so he claimed. Not sure I would have wanted him near guns, seemed mentally compromised. Yet, he was able to explain and speak, mostly, in rational dialog.

Where do you draw the line between rights and public safety?

boatmanschneider
February 3, 2013, 12:10 PM
Difficulties resulting from a concussion/TBI are considered mental problems. Mrs. Giffords problems would be/should be rated no different than disabled vets.

Unless of course, the vets are being misdiagnosed?

PRM
February 3, 2013, 12:20 PM
Difficulties resulting from a concussion/TBI are considered mental problems. Mrs. Giffords problems would be/should be rated no different than disabled vets.

Unless of course, the vets are being misdiagnosed?

And, vets with TBI/PTSD are a prime target of the anti-gun crowd. Does anyone have a doubt as to how this type of service related disability would be rated for a vet. Then you have to look at any mood altering or therapeutic drugs she may be on.

I personally don't think she is a danger (and I certainly don't know or claim to know specifics). Nor do I think anyone will ever come for her guns. Nobody - ever said the world was fair.

JRH6856
February 3, 2013, 01:01 PM
It is not just "mentally impaired" or "mentally ill," or "mentally disabled," it is any or all of those with violent tendencies. The only reliable predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Physical and psychological trauma can cause a change in anybody's potential behavior, but until that change manifests itself in violent behavior, it is not possible to say with certainty that there is an increased risk of violence.

Violent behavior is not just the result of mental illness. A "normal" person with a quick temper may present a greater danger of violent behavior than a person with fully manifested schizophrenia.

gym
February 3, 2013, 01:08 PM
It's the same as always, you never can be sure what a humn being will do under stress. I think certain things just happen, like the perfect storm, for instance, someone gets diagnosed with a terminal disease, loses their job, and their wife leaves them . There are triggers that can make an already slightlly unbalanced person , go over the top. But it's not a gun peoblem, they can drive a car into a crowd or stab someone, it's too hypothetical.

Solo
February 3, 2013, 01:19 PM
Violent behavior is not just the result of mental illness. A "normal" person with a quick temper may present a greater danger of violent behavior than a person with fully manifested schizophrenia.
If only because the vast majority of schizophrenics are non-violent.

JRH6856
February 3, 2013, 01:30 PM
Solo, exactly the point. I said "may present" because I try to avoid absolutes.

Cosmoline
February 3, 2013, 01:41 PM
One problem is our laws don't draw a distinction between the vast majority of mentally ill and disabled who present no threat and those who need meds or they'll hear martians telling them to kill people. I think we need to better tailor the laws and the early warning net to single out the dangerous psychos and disarm them. Not just of firearms, but of any weapon. If you're getting psych meds to keep you from snapping and going on a killing spree, you should never own a firearm. That's something that should come with the meds, automatically. I'm sick of these nutcases. They are the single biggest threat to our RKBA right now.

OTOH, the merely depressed or suicidal are not really the issue here and should not be the focus of the law as they currently are. If you want to kill yourself, fine. It's not like you need a gun to do that. It's not even illegal.

BBQJOE
February 3, 2013, 01:46 PM
Devils advocate:
Has a non-violent, mentally disabled person ever needed to defend themselves from an attack?
Pursuant to our laws, they are not allowed that right or luxury.

Solo
February 3, 2013, 01:53 PM
Tough question: What if the voice in your head telling you to do things is the voice of God? I really don't think we can classify the religious as crazy, but I know many who claim that their deity has literally talked to them and provided guidance in difficult times.

XD 45acp
February 3, 2013, 02:53 PM
First off, let me say I think the Giffords should be able to keep their guns. Now, If you go by Their argument, she shouldn't. So it's like they are trying to make stuff better, but shooting themselves in the foot without realizing it.

Inebriated
February 3, 2013, 03:07 PM
Her guns shouldn't be taken, because she isn't mentally ill, or violent. She's physically disabled. If someone is noted to have violent tendencies, then I think care should be taken to minimize the likelihood of an outburst, as well as the damage they could cause. Whether that means removing access to firearms, knives, cars, etc., I don't know. I would think that in many cases, it would be more advantageous to find what causes such outbursts, than it is to just take dangerous things from them, but I don't really know anything about mental illness, so maybe that's the only option?


but shooting themselves in the foot without realizing it.

I bet that'd be a jaw-dropper if you said it at the dinner table... lol

JRH6856
February 3, 2013, 03:37 PM
The problem is, if the mentally ill are going to lose their 2A rights, the Antis will not want to target only those with violent tendencies. They will want to make the net as large as possible and take guns away from as many people as they can. So don't look for any proposed law to have a strict definition. And they will want to remove the adjudication requirements as in the recent NY law and rely on a medical recommendation alone.

This isn't a slippery slope, it's a greased pole.

9MMare
February 3, 2013, 05:15 PM
There really is no way to do this. To ensure the mentally ill never get guns.

We should frame the argument that we should focus on treating the mentally ill and not stigmatizing them so that they fear seeking treatment.

If we treat our social ills in general there will be less crime, period. Less mentally ill, period. Less angry marginalized people, period.

That is the main reason I dont support much in the way of gun laws or other things that limit people or actions. Because they are bandaids and none will ever work completely.

You must deal with the root of the issue...how human beings treat each other.


And there you have a liberal response :)

That, and of course my signature: "Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free."

Sam Cade
February 3, 2013, 05:24 PM
And there you have a liberal response :)


Very well done, Sir or Madam. :cool:

beatledog7
February 3, 2013, 05:26 PM
There are many mental impairments. The ones that render the sufferer unable to discern right from wrong or unable to control one's decision-making processes are the ones that are dangerous in terms of firearm access.

I'm no expert, but it seems to me that many mental impairments would not be of that nature.

Hurryin' Hoosier
February 3, 2013, 05:39 PM
When I saw the title this thread I thought maybe someone else had posted that staged picture of Obama with his shotgun. ;)

gym
February 4, 2013, 01:51 PM
The fact of the matter is, when you have a gun related incident, they take your guns and permit until an investigation is done. So sometimes you can be disarmed at the exact moment you need your gun the most.
IE: you have a home invasion, and they threaten to come back and kill your family, "this is often the case" usually in an effort to get you not to report it, "happened to me", so now who is menatlly defficient here the licensee, "who now needs a gun more than ever" or the police who think "this is a good time to pull their license and guns".
If they pulled Giffords permit during the investigation, "and her husbands" , as it was a gun related crime, then someone had to sign off to give the weapons back, indicating that she was ok to have them. This should be easy enough to find out, if someone had the time to pull records.
A judgement had to have been made as to how they calssified her.

Cosmoline
February 4, 2013, 02:00 PM
when you have a gun related incident, they take your guns and permit until an investigation is done.

There's no set rule on that, and it depends a lot on who the cops are dealing with and where they're located. NYC cops are going to behave radically differently from Anchorage cops after a shooting.

I don't know why or how Arizona cops would have seized Gifford's firearms. And any records regarding her mental status and guardianship, if they exist, are likely to be sealed probate matters not open to public view. In all likelihood her husband has taken control over her affairs and presumably has decided what to do with any firearms she owned. Probably quietly ditched them months ago.

JR47
February 4, 2013, 02:15 PM
Psychiatry is not a well-defined science. All too many "rules" and "diseases" are almost a single-handed definition.

Mention PTSD, and everyone thinks military. When, in fact, PTSD evidences itself during most traumatic situations. Fire/EMS and Police have Critical Incident Stress Teams. They come into a station after a serious incident if anyone evidences problems. Most people would be surprised at how often non-military people exhibit the symptoms of PTSD.

Depression is also a buzz word today. Millions of people are being treated for this condition. Anti-depression meds, in low doses, are prescribed without mental health exams by M.D.s.

We need to be very careful as to what our politicians make for laws regarding mental health issues. It's only a fine step between losing your Second Amendment Rights, and also losing your right to vote (if you can't own a gun because of mental illness, can you be trusted to make an informed decision in voting?).

Until science understands what, how, and why mental illness exists, making law based on it is ridiculous.

Axel Larson
February 4, 2013, 02:55 PM
I skimmed the thread so I am sorry if someone already said this but until a court of law judges a person to be mentally ill that person is not mentally ill only a court of law according to the 14th and 20th Amendments are able to take away someone's rights unless we have lost or take away due process.

somerandomguy
February 4, 2013, 03:48 PM
My whole issue with this line of thinking is who gets to determine what "mentally fit" is. That and the whole "innocent till proven guilty" bit.

While not a psych, I do work in healthcare and do MH screening for depression and PTSD for vets. If a guy has never commited a crime and is felling a bit "down" or still has some disturbing nightmares and gets some anxiety in crowds or closed in spaces, should "we" takes his guns away?

Then again, if there are warning signs and noone acts on them, and the person goes on a rampage, what could have been done different?

Watched a guy on COPS last night. Shot some rounds into his door while he was cleaningnhis gun. Or so he claimed. Not sure I would have wanted him near guns, seemed mentally compromised. Yet, he was able to explain and speak, mostly, in rational dialog.

Where do you draw the line between rights and public safety?
My answer is that you don't draw the line. Even piece of garbage gangbangers and the mentally unstable should be allowed to own firearms, period. "Shall not be infringed" means exactly that. Remember, John Adams was considered crazy and mentally unstable at the time of the American Revolution. People thought the same of George Washington. Clearly John Adams and George Washington didn't go on a spree-shooting and massacre a bunch of children.

Edit: furthermore, do you know how many people in America fantasize about hurting their bosses or pushing them off a roof or something? That doesn't mean that they are actually going to act on those fantasies. I mean there's a pretty clear distinction between fantasizing about doing something illegal, and actually doing it.

gym
February 4, 2013, 04:27 PM
What Cos said is true, but in NY it's a "may if the choose to" issue state, They can pull your permit and not even give a reason.
It would be a sure thing that the shooting of someone in her position would be grounds for an investigation, I would be suprised if it was not done immediatlly, They don't know anything about this kind of shooting when it happens.
The first thin they do is pull the guns and carry permit. then investigate and after the results "if you are cleared" you get it back.
I don't know what they do in her state

Isaac-1
February 4, 2013, 06:00 PM
Part of me thinks people with REAL mental problems should not be allowed to own guns, the problem is the line may start with people that hear voices in the heads telling them to hurt people, or that have a history of violent outbreaks and will quickly lead to people that are having trouble sleeping loosing their gun rights.

SlamFire1
February 4, 2013, 06:11 PM
Not an easy topic.

Locally, a pastor was murdered on the steps of his church by his wife. She shot him. At trial, she claimed she was bi-polar and that diagnosis was enough to declare her innocent of murder. She does not have a conviction on her record and she is out and about.

I think if you are suffering from a mental condition that if you kill people, you donít go to jail or the electric chair, then in my opinion, you should not have any guns.

Maybe we should include people who are on anti depressants and anti psychotics . That will disarm most of the women over 50!

Water-Man
February 4, 2013, 06:20 PM
I can't say regarding Gifford but as to Kelly, yes his gun should be taken away.

alsaqr
February 4, 2013, 06:25 PM
A violent mental case should not be allowed to own a gun-period!!

Read the NICS Improvement Act of 2007. States are supposed input the names of adjudicated mental cases into NICS. Problem is that few states are doing that.

How are the terms "adjudicated as a mental defective" and "committed to a mental institution" defined?
Section 922(g)(4), Title 18, United States Code, prohibits the receipt or possession of firearms by an individual who has been "adjudicated as a mental defective" or "committed to a mental institution." Regulations issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), 27 C.F.R. ß 478.11, define these terms as follows:
Adjudicated as a mental defective.

(1) A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:

Is a danger to himself or to others; or
Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.
(2) The term shall include —

A finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and
Those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to articles 50a and 72b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 850a, 876b.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=49

CNN has a good piece on NICS and the failure of states to furnish input. CNN used the example of a long time OK violent mental case who legally bought guns, murdered his mother, cut her body up and froze the parts.

He didn't steal his guns or borrow them. He bought them.

"He bought them like any normal person would -- he got them at Walmart," said Oklahoma City Police Capt. Dexter Nelson.

Hume bought the rifles at the Walmart in Moore, Oklahoma, on September 25. The next day he bought the Glock at Gun World in the nearby town of Dell City, according to Nelson. Both are federally licensed gun dealers that conduct background checks. The checks, in theory, are supposed to stop certain people -- including the mentally ill with a history of violence -- from buying them.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/30/health/mental-illness-guns/

Deer_Freak
February 4, 2013, 06:39 PM
I don't know about other states, but here in NC if the police respond to a domestic call they confiscate all the guns in the house. I don't know what the process is to get your guns back.

cluck
February 4, 2013, 06:50 PM
I don't really expect this idea to be popular, but here it goes.
Firearms are already restricted to persons on schedule 1 and 2 drugs. Why not include ones that have been identified by their manufacturers to have violent side effects, particularly when NOT taking them. Just add a line in the 4473 right after line 11e that says, "Are you taking or have you ever been prescribed anti depressants, or anti psychotics?

Lex Luthier
February 4, 2013, 06:56 PM
The fact is, within a draconian agenda, the authorities could label almost anyone mentally ill based on their willingness to accept their agenda or not. Pol Pot, Castro, Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, all played this card.

And, they ALL took weapons away from the people so they couldn't defend themselves.

blarby
February 4, 2013, 06:59 PM
Edit: furthermore, do you know how many people in America fantasize about hurting their bosses or pushing them off a roof or something? That doesn't mean that they are actually going to act on those fantasies. I mean there's a pretty clear distinction between fantasizing about doing something illegal, and actually doing it.

I know with 100% certainty that in California, this is not the case.


Firearms are already restricted to persons on schedule 1 and 2 drugs.

Please explain.

bikerdoc
February 4, 2013, 07:06 PM
It is the warning signs of already known people with a diagnosis that needs more monitoring ala cho, Laughter, and Conn nut job, not G I Joe or depressed housewives

cluck
February 4, 2013, 07:32 PM
I know with 100% certainty that in California, this is not the case.




Please explain.
People who illegally use controlled substances are restricted persons. (Line 11e on 4473)

Cosmoline
February 4, 2013, 08:05 PM
It would be simple enough to include RX's for certain anti-psychotics as a prohibiting factor. Enforcement is tricky given federal and state privacy issues.

My own tolerance for the crazed murderers is getting less and less. Reviving the asylums seems like a potential solution as well. At least for the violently insane who are a threat to others if off meds. I'd be happy to pay an excise tax on firearms to help pay for their lifetime housing at a secured facility.

somerandomguy
February 4, 2013, 08:06 PM
A violent mental case should not be allowed to own a gun-period!!

Read the NICS Improvement Act of 2007. States are supposed input the names of adjudicated mental cases into NICS. Problem is that few states are doing that.



http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=49

CNN has a good piece on NICS and the failure of states to furnish input. CNN used the example of a long time OK violent mental case who legally bought guns, murdered his mother, cut her body up and froze the parts.



http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/30/health/mental-illness-guns/
And at what point is someone considered "non-violent" if they have been rehabilitated? It's such a terrible slippery slope to not allow ex-criminals and people with a history of mental illness to own firearms. If anything, this will only make people not want to seek mental help. A mental health check is counter-productive.

somerandomguy
February 4, 2013, 08:12 PM
People who illegally use controlled substances are restricted persons. (Line 11e on 4473)
You know, let's get into that illegal drug arguement (even though you are talking about the abuse of legal substances) and tie it in: in some states people become felons just for possessing a tiny amount of marijuana. You think the criminal justice system won't be expanded and abused simply to push an anti-gun agenda? Anyone who thinks it won't is delusional. If you give them an inch, they take a mile.

blarby
February 4, 2013, 08:17 PM
illegally use

and

restricted to persons on schedule 1 and 2 drugs.

Are two completely different statements.

I know what the 4473 states- unlawful user.

Unlawful user and "persons on" are radically different. Lets not blur the lines anymore than necessary.

k_dawg
February 4, 2013, 08:19 PM
The standard should be

1) convicted felon
2) mental adjudication

Anything else is a violation of the 4th amendment, imho.

bikerdoc
February 4, 2013, 08:54 PM
The standard should be

1) convicted felon
2) mental adjudication

Anything else is a violation of the 4th amendment, imho.

My point exactly,cho and laughtner were in the process and the system worked too slow.

Sol
February 4, 2013, 08:55 PM
It's true californians who smoke pot may not be under the states firearm disabilty laws, but they are definatley under a federal disability, see gun control act of 1968 and controlled substance act: is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)

JohnBT
February 4, 2013, 09:03 PM
"It would be simple enough to include RX's for certain anti-psychotics as a prohibiting factor."

Easy, but inaccurate. They aren't always prescribed for psychosis. A great many drugs are prescribed off-schedule/off-label - iow, for conditions other than what they were approved for. Doctors can legally do this and they do.

Not to mention all of the folks who would refuse to take the first dose if they knew that there was a 2nd Amendment penalty. Unintended consequences and all that.

John

somerandomguy
February 4, 2013, 09:14 PM
"It would be simple enough to include RX's for certain anti-psychotics as a prohibiting factor."

Easy, but inaccurate. They aren't always prescribed for psychosis. A great many drugs are prescribed off-schedule/off-label - iow, for conditions other than what they were approved for. Doctors can legally do this and they do.

Not to mention all of the folks who would refuse to take the first dose if they knew that there was a 2nd Amendment penalty. Unintended consequences and all that.

John
I actually pointed that out earlier in regards to the mental health check. If anything, it's only going to cause people with mental issues to not seek help. It's counterproductive.

beeenbag
February 4, 2013, 09:30 PM
In my opinion, even if we did find a way that truly did stop the "crazies" from obtaining firearms, we still will never stop the "crazies" from commiting crimes.

Therefore it falls back to the great words of Wayne LaPierre, "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun". You could change that to "the only way to stop a bad guy with a knife, is a good guy with a gun" or "bad guy with a bat" or "bad guy with a tire iron". See where I'm going with this?

If you enjoyed reading about "Mentally impaired and guns" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!