Mentally impaired and guns

I think she would be classified as disabled. It would have no bearing imo

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?

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?

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

If only because the vast majority of schizophrenics are non-violent.

Solo, exactly the point. I said "may present" because I try to avoid absolutes.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

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."

9MMare said:

And there you have a liberal response

Click to expand...

Very well done, Sir or Madam.

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.

When I saw the title this thread I thought maybe someone else had posted that staged picture of Obama with his shotgun.

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.

when you have a gun related incident, they take your guns and permit until an investigation is done.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

ID-shooting said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.