Be careful what you wish for - the problem with the "mental health" issue

Status
Not open for further replies.

ngnrd

Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2010
Messages
984
Location
South Central Alaska
Before anybody agrees to the government's intrusion into another person's medical history on the basis that it would benefit society, please ask yourself two questions... why? ... and, to what end?

If the answers are that we need to keep guns away from the mentally incompetent in order to keep horrific events like Newtown from happening... well, you need to understand that none of the proposed or recently enacted laws would have prevented Adam Lanza from doing what he did. You see, here's something that isn't generally reported... while Adam didn't fit into the "normal" box that society (and by extension, our government) seems to think people should fit into, NONE of his diagnoses included any conditions linked to violent behavior. And with no diagnosed propensity for violence, there was no reason to bar either him, or his mother from owning firearms. If this is upsetting to you, please identify which of his specific mental illnesses should have been the red flag in this case? Or should just the fact that he had some kind of mental illness be enough to bar him from firearm ownership?

Pushing, or even just accepting "mental illness" as a justifiable reason to disarm the American people based on the Sandy Hook tragedy is foolish on its face. And it is also dangerous. How many "normal" people have had - at one time or another in their lives - a period in which they were anxious or depressed, had a bout of OCD or ADD, had a panic attack, or were forced to get treatment for anger management because they got in a fight as a teen? What of those among us that have phobias, or eating disorders? Would you argue that these mental deficiencies are any less dangerous than Lanza's non-violent conditions? Or would you instead willingly turn in your firearms because you, or your roommate, or a member of your family, or your holiday houseguest, have been proven to be less than mentally perfect and shouldn’t be trusted around such a dangerous tool?

Before you answer, I’d like to remind you that there are those that would argue that even wanting to possess an “instrument of death” like a firearm is a legitimate sign of mental deficiency. So, be careful what you wish for, for you just might get it.
 
Don't forget that Obamacare has an "electronic medical records" requirement. If you are on an antidepressant a little Ativan for sleep, or maybe an occasional Xanax for anxiety, you could get the "hut-hut tango squad" at your door. Joe
 
Look out for "normal" people.

Very well put. There are those that believe that all criminals are mentally ill. They forget things like anger, greed, avarice and just plain evil are the causes of crime.

"Normal" people are the ones you have to look out for. Most murderers are normal by legal and medical standards. I'm not making light of the recent mass shooting but we should remember a very small percentage of the mentally ill are actually violent criminals or have the potential of become one.
 
People can be temporarily in mental crisis. Should that be a permanent disqualifier?

Do we want a situation where a gun owner that values owning guns refuses to seek help because they will be become a permanently prohibited person?

The left has pushed for mental health coverage and wants to keep it private. I agree with that position for the most part.

The left needs to talk to the rest of the left about how their hatred of the Second Amendment is at odds with supporting mental health programs.

Myself, I'm willing to deal with a few crazy types with guns if I and others are not disarmed. Most crazy types seem fairly savvy when it comes to what will happen if they act out in the wrong place. Consider how they tend to go off in gun free zones.

Clutch
 
The NRA is backing S.480 - a bill that gives strong protections against having the mental health disqualifier expanded to people who are not a threat and who have not received an adversarial hearing with counsel. I think it is worth supporting.
 
The more I think about and research the mental health disqualification angle, the more ominous it looks.

It may well be that it's the anti's trump card. If we as gun owners get lax or sloppy about our position on the koo-koo DQ, we could soon learn that all of us meet the new criteria.
 
And once you've been branded as "mentally instable," that will spill over into things like hiring criteria, your credit score, and so on. And you can never get your record cleared
 
"please identify which of his specific mental illnesses"

I have not seen any actual diagnoses reported by the people who made them. No doctor's report or hospital report or even a school psychological (and they don't give diagnoses, only recommend appropriate placement.)

I have heard that somebody reported he had this, or had that, or that a family member reported something, but I have not seen anything even close to an official medical and/or treatment history.

Have you?
 
You REALLY DON'T WANT the government deciding who is mentally unstable. Because that will be all of us.

Sad=Depressed
Mad=Anger issues
Anti-Big Government=Oppositional Defiance Disorder
Own A Gun For SD or HD=Paranoia
Wish You Could See A Loved One That Has Passed=Suicidal


And I can come up with MANY more. Trust me. I work in this field. It's VERY easy to become diagnosed as "mentally unstable".
 
I have lived in a country where people have to be "evaluated" for something as simple as employment. The same goes for purchasing a firearm. If they judge you "unfit", you cannot get a gun...or the job.

I fully expect this "mental illness" reporting to morph into that level of tyranny.
 
The thing that scares me about this is the government claiming the majority of the public as being mentally deficient, unstable, or otherwise unable to coherently own a weapon. They're doing that right now with our military coming back from overseas. If you've been in combat, then you MUST have PTSD, and therefore unable to legally own a firearm.
 
I oppose permanent bans on ownership for felons or mentally ill. People convicted of violent crimes should get harsh sentences with post probation. After they should be allowed to return to society as full citizens. If they are so dangerous, don't let them out.
Same for those who are "dangerously" mentally ill. They should either be allowed to be reassessed or after a period of time have all their rights restored.

They should not become permanent second class citizens. Especially non-violent or without due process.
 
Until someone can offer PROOF that "soft science" (which drugs, which mental illness, etc. will cause a violent act) is no longer "soft science" but is now "Hard Science" (provably and repeatably true, time after time) ... the ONLY "mental health criteria that I will accept is:

ADJUDICATIONS OF MENTAL DEFECT

INVOLUNTARY COMMITTMENTS

These are the result of DUE PROCESS, as required by the Constitution.

I have heard it reported (but haven't found it for myself) that M-T has a section that authorizes a "doctor" or other mental health practitioner to put a patient on the "prohibited person" list with NICS and not so inform that person.

I've wailed on my Senators about this, but have not had a response. From what I've already gathered from the M-T Bill is that I DO NOT ACCEPT IT.

For one thing, I'm sick and tired of legislation being written in a manner that makes it virtually impossible for a non-legal person to be likely to be able to understand it.

WRITE THE BILLS IN CLEAR ENGLISH ... what are you "lawyers" in Washington affraid of?
 
The FBI defines mass murder as a single event where 4 or more people, excluding the killer, lose their lives.

In 2012, out of a population of 313+ million people, just about SIX people became mass murderers. It's inconcievable anybody could predict the next SIX.
 
"please identify which of his specific mental illnesses"

I have not seen any actual diagnoses reported by the people who made them. No doctor's report or hospital report or even a school psychological (and they don't give diagnoses, only recommend appropriate placement.)

I have heard that somebody reported he had this, or had that, or that a family member reported something, but I have not seen anything even close to an official medical and/or treatment history.

Have you?
I based the question on currently available information (of which I admit there isn't much). It's been 4 months since Newtown. If there were a smoking gun regarding Lanza's mental health, I would think it would have been discovered by now.

Did you read the article from the link I posted?

---> this article <---
 
I based the question on currently available information (of which I admit there isn't much). It's been 4 months since Newtown. If there were a smoking gun regarding Lanza's mental health, I would think it would have been discovered by now.

Did you read the article from the link I posted?

---> this article <---
"Discovered", but not revealed. Can you tell us what psych drugs were found in his apt or his doctors prescribed? Why has that not been revealed? They can release parts of the search inventory that tell us what kind of boots, ammo, caliber and brand of guns, etc. But not one word about the cocktail of drugs he was using. There can be no doubt his doctors had him on a cocktail of powerful drugs.
Why is that still "under investigation"? 4 months to write down the names of bottles found in his bathroom? Isn't that relevant?

I think they just want to stall until after they ram some new gun grabbing bills, that would include a "mental health" clause. Then, after it's law, they can reveal the drugs and include everyone who takes those kinds of drugs to the list.
 
That's certainly possible, Joe. It doesn't change my premise, or the ultimate results of gun control via a very broad definition of what's considered poor mental health. But I appreciate your comments.
 
ngnrd ... the article you linked me to (thanks) is interesting only because is points out that there was clearly illegal conduct engaged in by those who wanted to silence the whitle blower. People, most unfortunately, get "railroaded on a seemingly regular basis in any contact with the justice system ... because there are bad apples in every bushel. I wish it were otherwise.

My point about allowing only the two instances I mentioned for mental health screening is that it is already a disqualifier on the #4473, making one a "prohibited person". Additionally, all the soft science crap out there is just that ... crap. You get 12 experts giving 6 to 8 different "opinions" (unless some change their minds in which case it will be at least 12 differing opinions). I'm not convinced that mental health is sufficiently advanced to permit us to use soft science in rendering decisions that will deprive a citizen of a right, an individual, fundamental right; on the basis that he "might" do something. That's just too far down the road of "Enemy of the State" to be acceptable. To take away the emotion of the moment, I always substitute a 1st Amendment right in place of my 2nd Amendment right and ask myself it that approach is reasonable to my mind ...like the right to vote, for instance.

CCP_Holder ... your links serve to make my point about soft science and precisely why it's useless. To paraphrase: "owning a firearm is a precursor to gun violence". Really? I've been a gun owner for 58 of my 68 years, I also served as a Combat Infantryman in Vietnam in 1968. Since 1968, I have not threatened, injured or killed another human being. None of my firearms have threatened, injured or killed another living thing since I've owned them. Since I'm not dead yet, I suppose that they could make that case that I still might cross over the line ... but given my record, it certainly seems unlikely.

So, to my point again. Soft science is not appropriate for determining "prohibited person" status on a #4473. The line must be drawn at DUE PROCESS:
Adjudications of mental defect and/or involuntary committments, just as the line on the criminal side is drawn at Felony Convictions and/or Domestic Abuse and Restraining Orders.

I have not expressed my opinions on whether these "prohibitions" are lifelong or not. I GENERALLY would opt for not ... but that's another conversation for another day.
 
Last edited:
I'm not convinced that mental health is sufficiently advanced to permit us to use soft science in rendering decisions that will deprive a citizen of a right, an individual, fundamental right; on the basis that he "might" do something.
I agree wholeheartedly. Innocent until proven guilty is the way it should be, instead of "preventative disarmament" so society can feel safer.
 
> If you are on an antidepressant a little Ativan for
> sleep,or maybe an occasional Xanax for anxiety,

http://www.forbes.com/2010/09/16/prozac-xanax-valium-business-healthcare-psychiatric-drugs.html

50 million Xanax prescriptions per year

48 million Ambien

28 million Lexapro

26 million Ativan

25 million Neurontin

24 million Klonopin

19 million Zoloft

17 million Cymbalta

16 million Adderall and related drugs

16 million Effexor

Of course, some people may take more than one... the article says 169 million for various antidepressants, which would knock out half of the population, more or less.


How about a bill prohibiting anyone to hold public office or vote on legislation while taking antipsychotics or antidepressants? I'd like to see regular Breathalyzer and urine tests for the legislooters, too...
 
This is one of the major goals of the UBC ploy.To create as many categories of people who would be barred from owning and purchasing firearms.They sound "ok" on the surface for many,but when you really look at it and peek behind the curtain,its a trap.
 
The devil is always in the details, and the devil is aided/abetted by legions of attorneys and legislators. Etc.

So many seemingly great ideas are just unworkable at a large/national scale.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top