For those who want to stop the "mentally ill" from firearms

[Geister]

An out-of-control federal government is way more dangerous than violent nutcases, which are a very small portion of the population.

Ever since Lincoln was in office, the government has pushed harder and harder to restrict our gun rights. Our gun rights are meant to protect us from such a government, so I don't think they really need any more power.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

I'm a little fuzzy

I'm just a tad fuzzy on this . . . the discussion keeps breaking up into a hockey match . . .

Is there some contention that the psych "sciences" are supposed to be able to help us sort out who the nut-cases are, so we can keep them away from guns?

We're supposed to trust a bunch of self-important boobs who get together periodically and vote on what is supposed to be a "disease" this year?

We're supposed to trust a bunch of "doctors" whose speciality has been imported from countries where its primary use was keeping populations under control?

Whose crowning achievement in America has been the current state of our system of public education?

Could we -- just this once -- simply give them a nice ball of string to play with? Or maybe a large rock?

Seriously.

I look forward to the day the medical profession bans them for the charlatans they are.

(If you ask real nice, I might tell you how I REALLY feel.)

 

[Mumwaldee]

I'm just a tad fuzzy on this . . . the discussion keeps breaking up into a hockey match . . .

Yeah, it sort of spun out of control there....and I'm supposed to be the crazy one. I think I shall declare victory and depart the field.

 

[JohnBT]

"Is there some contention that the psych "sciences" are supposed to be able to help us sort out who the nut-cases are, so we can keep them away from guns?"

Yes, as trained observers they can report a person's behavior, but they're not in charge. The judge or hearing officer gets to make the final call. The person gets to have a lawyer and present evidence.

John

 

[JCF]

Is there some contention that the psych "sciences" are supposed to be able to help us sort out who the nut-cases are, so we can keep them away from guns?

The ones who demonstrate imminent risk through their public actions… yep.

We're supposed to trust a bunch of self-important boobs who get together periodically and vote on what is supposed to be a "disease" this year?

Not necessarily. We could simply do away with the entire process altogether and pretend that paranoid schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder and depression do not exist.

Let’s ask Mumwaldee: Mumwaldee… you’ve been diagnosed with bi-polar disorder, a DSM-IV categorized mental health condition. Does it, in your personal estimation, actually exist? Do you feel the symptoms of your condition? Has the condition ever negatively impacted your quality of life (despite the fact that it may not have ever made you a danger to yourself or others)? Objectively and honestly Mumwaldee, what does it feel like when you hear people suggest that you, and people like you, are not in fact experiencing some form of pathology???

We're supposed to trust a bunch of "doctors" whose speciality has been imported from countries where its primary use was keeping populations under control?

No. Society is free to eschew at will; reject and dismantle the mental health system en masse if they so choose. They choose not to. I'm sorry that irritates you.

Whose crowning achievement in America has been the current state of our system of public education?

The current state of education in America is the fault of Psychiatry? Exclusively Arfin? How novel.

Could we -- just this once -- simply give them a nice ball of string to play with? Or maybe a large rock?

Seriously.

I look forward to the day the medical profession bans them for the charlatans they are.

I look forward to the day there is "peace on earth and no child is left to go to bed hungry."

I used to look forward to the Easter Bunny.

 

[F4GIB]

From Reason Magazine: Steve Chapman, writing in the libertarian Reason Magazine, supports the McCarthy effort in Congress to add more mental-health records to the NICS database. "The obvious alternative to upgrading enforcement of the existing law is to repeal it and let people known to suffer from dangerous mental illnesses enjoy free access to firearms. And that, pardon the expression, would be lunacy.

http://reason.com/news/show/119986.html


And From National Review: ...Mere law cannot stop sick and wicked men from committing acts of profound evil. Yet sensible legislation, limited in scope and respectful of the Second Amendment, may help protect both lives and rights.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTM4Y2RhNGQxM2RiODYxZjlkODE2MzkyMmNlNDFiNDA=

 

[whited]

.

An out-of-control federal government is way more dangerous than violent nutcases, which are a very small portion of the population.

Ever since Lincoln was in office, the government has pushed harder and harder to restrict our gun rights. Our gun rights are meant to protect us from such a government, so I don't think they really need any more power.

How dare you criticize KING LINCOLN!!!!

*bows reverently*

40 lashes!

 

[madmike]

The adjudicated insane and incompetent are already prohibited from buying weapons. What "reasonable additions" are they planning to make?

 

[Mumwaldee]

Let’s ask Mumwaldee...

Let's not! People are free to think and believe whatever they want to believe...at least for a little while longer. If someone wants the nickel tour of my life and experience I'd gladly share it in a PM, but I don't think I'll open up my closet and dump my luggage out in front of the entirety of THR, thanks.

The issue is, as I see it, should we take away people's rights based on what they might do. My answer is still no.

 

[JCF]

Let's not! People are free to think and believe whatever they want to believe...at least for a little while longer. If someone wants the nickel tour of my life and experience I'd gladly share it in a PM, but I don't think I'll open up my closet and dump my luggage out in front of the entirety of THR, thanks.

Fair enough. A very understandable position.

I'm going to suggest, with all due respect to those involved in this discourse, that if you wish to suggest for whatever reason that mental health practitioners, judges, et al are unable to adequately identify imminent risk to your personal satisfaction, that this is indeed your perogative.

To bandy about through statement or intimation this inane concept that serious mental illness is somehow a fabrication of the behavioral health field however, is a profound diservice to the individuals whose lives are deeply impacted by their condition.

To hearken back (with respect and some apology) to a statement made by Mumwaldee earlier in this thread:

...some days I feel like superman and other days I feel like dirt...

What this person is going through IS NOT a fabrication, IT IS NOT an artificially constructed tool of oppression of the masses, IT IS NOT the result of poor upbringing or lack of exercise or a need to read more L. Ron Hubbard.

 

[MrDig]

Aint this mare dead yet?
We need to clarify the circumstances that get people reported to NICS. The Courts need this definition so as to bolster the NICS and that in and of itself is a good thing.
Don't abolish the system due to it's failure, ammend it to be more accurate.

 

[Ponygirl]

Interesting Article

Bacteria, viruses and parasites may cause mental illnesses like depression and perhaps even autism and anorexia...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3540627/site/newsweek/_

 

[ctdonath]

There's some report/theory that 80% of cat owners (or was it people in general) have contracted a parasite from cats that cause a notable decrease in brain function.

 

[madmike]

Cat owners don't drive around with them in the car, let them crap all over people's lawns, french kiss them, wonder why they're not allowed in department stores, hospitals and movie theaters, or any of those other stunts those dog owning weirdos do.

If there's a stupid virus, it's spread in dog drool

 

[Mumwaldee]

So, now we want to take firearms from mentally ill cats? Tiger doesn't think so:

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Results

Is there some contention that the psych "sciences" are supposed to be able to help us sort out who the nut-cases are, so we can keep them away from guns?

The ones who demonstrate imminent risk through their public actions… yep.

We're supposed to trust a bunch of self-important boobs who get together periodically and vote on what is supposed to be a "disease" this year?

Not necessarily. We could simply do away with the entire process altogether and pretend that paranoid schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder and depression do not exist.

We're supposed to trust a bunch of "doctors" whose speciality has been imported from countries where its primary use was keeping populations under control?

No. Society is free to eschew at will; reject and dismantle the mental health system en masse if they so choose. They choose not to. I'm sorry that irritates you.

Whose crowning achievement in America has been the current state of our system of public education?

The current state of education in America is the fault of Psychiatry? Exclusively Arfin? How novel.

Smug.

No substance, but smug.

Yes, anyone who questions the validity of "Team Labcoat" must be belittled and scorned.

After serving as a contractor for several years with the NEA, after working as a field volunteer in rehab and education for a decade, and after having kids schooled both within and without the government's school system, I can state with confidence that the labcoated thugs are ruining our school system. Their results suck.

I'll concede that some part of the problem is a result of the socialist bureaucracy that ostensibly manages the system, but the truly dangerous stuff is peddled by the psych crowd.

It's not science; it's consensus of guesswork and it's politically motivated.

It would be disastrous to RKBA to give these guys any kind of serious role in determining who shall be allowed to own guns.

Clearly, you're not going to be persuaded.

So be it.

Conversely, assertions of validity and applicability of the psych "sciences" will get no traction with me.

I can conclude from this that we'll never agree on this topic, so to continue to "argue" would really be nothing more than posturing and playing to the gallery.

I will therefore not attempt to offer further disagreement with your stance.

 

[JCF]

a bunch of self-important boobs

a bunch of "doctors"

give them a nice ball of string to play with? Or maybe a large rock?

"Team Lab coat"

Smug.

No substance, but smug.

Clearly, you're not going to be persuaded.

So be it.

LTFOL...

I'm sorry my post was not in keeping with your standard. I shall try harder in the future.

As eloquent as your argument has been, and as compelling as the evidence offered in support of it... no I'm afraid it has fallen just slightly shy of convincing me.

What can I say, I'm a tough sale.

I know you don't wish to talk about this anymore... but just for the sake of curiosity;

you made the following statement...

I'll concede that some part of the problem is a result of the socialist bureaucracy that ostensibly manages the system, but the truly dangerous stuff is peddled by the psych crowd.

It's not science; it's consensus of guesswork and it's politically motivated.

So answer me a question.

You reject, as guesswork and political initiative, based upon your experiences as a public school collateral, what the medical field thoroughly accepts; DSM-IV categorized severe mental illness, and its treatment based in best practice policies.

So what exactly is an individual such as Mumwaldee experiencing? Is it real? Is it an imposition? If it is real, what has caused it? How should it be addressed? How do you know all this?

 

[madmike]

Some Pshrinks have been pushing for several years for MANDATORY mental health screens for school kids, followed by MANDATORY drugging of kids they think have problems, with "PROTECTIVE CUSTODY" of kids whose parents refuse.

So far, it's been shot down every year, with Ron Paul leading the block.

I recall annual training one year with CAP cadets on site. About a third came down with symptoms: fast, thready pulse, shallow breathing, nausea, vomiting, dizziness, weakness, chills. Onset was about an hour and it was all of them at once.

Now, in my barracks it would have been Budweiser Flu, but not that coordinated.

I helped the site nurse go through applications with medical info...the usual Ritalin (Which did help me when I was 7, and which my parents and I took me off at 11 to stop zombieism--I was a perfect drone with no creativity), inhalers, minor stuff, and 15 kids on PROZAC.

Me: "Why TF are teenagers on PROZAC???"

Nurse: "Oh, the psychiatrists prescribe it because they feel unloved and as if the world is against them."

Me: "I thought that was part of being a teenager."

Nurse: "I agree, but the parents don't want to work with it, and drugs are easy, and Prozac has become a status symbol."

Turns out, the victims were suffering from caffeine withdrawal--they were under the impression they weren't allowed soda out of the chow hall. So they ran on adrenaline for 48 hours, after cold-turkeying their THREE TO FOUR TWO-LITERS OF MOUNTAIN DEW A DAY :banghead: and then went DOWN.

Any parent who would neglect their kids like that, and any "professional" who would assist in drugging them should be jailed if not shot.

We're talking 15% of 100ish kids, 13-17. You CANNOT tell me with a straight face that 15% of that group were clinically depressed. (Not to mention, Ritalin, Xanax, and one kid on all three, poor bastard.)

Anyone trying to mandatorily drug my kids is a Molon Labe scenario. Make no mistake.

 

[JackOfAllTradesMasterAtNone]

I hadn't noticed this thread... I have some personal experience.

Mom's husband.. 3 tour Nam Vet. Infantry and Tank commander. Retired GS. One of the nicest guys you'll ever meet. Until one day.

He'd given me guns and thousands of rounds over the years. He was a very avid and capable shooter. Until one day.

One day, the microwave digital readout was flashing because of a power blip. In his mind, it was a code. Under tone of the microwave and the coffee pot dinger, he heard voices. He heard voices in the shower. We won't talk about the nightmares. Reliving combat. Still for so long, he held it all together.

One evening mom caught him in his skivies, pistol in hand, standing in the middle of the street, sighted in on the driver of a car that had stopped. When authorities got his attention, He couldn't believe what he was doing. People were lucky that day. He'd snapped, but not totally flipped out.

After some time, Getting diagnosis/prognosis, I ended up doing one of the toughest things I've ever had to do in life. While he was getting treatment, I removed the guns, ammo and reloading equipment from the house.

I kept the ammo, and sold some of the arms, kept some, sold some of mine to make up the difference and then gave him the cash when he got better.

He knows what he did was wrong. And as long has he's still taking anti phsycotic medications for this condition, we feel it best for society that he doesn't have access to 'weapons of mass distruction'. As family, we didn't need any doctor to tell us. At 75 years old with an ailing heart, he doesn't get out much now anyway. Still, it was certainly one of the most trying experiences he ever had to go through. And he understands why I did what I did. He also understands that it wasn't easy for me either.

So, there's at least one post here that implies that the mentally ill can be rehabilitated. Sometimes.

Ask yourself this; Would you like mom's husband to live in your neighborhood with the munitions a good many of us take for granted as avid shooters? Would you be willing to take that chance? Any given day, many of us can have10-20,000 rounds on hand. We need to be of sound mind to be responsible with our chosen hobby.

I am a member of a NW border gun club. Several police agencies shoot at our club. In my mind, a good many of them shouldn't have guns either. But that's a different story.

-Steve

 

[wjustinen]

Would you like mom's husband to live in your neighborhood with the munitions a good many of us take for granted as avid shooters?

Yes.

Statistically (for what that is worth) no-knock warrants pose a much greater risk than do all the "mom's husband"s in our communities.

The danger contemplated by the framers of the constitution - and experienced by millions of holocaust victims - is not something that an armed individual can deal with. It is best dealt with by an armed populace constantly reminding government that real power is beyond government control. There are many reasons to mandate that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

While we usually consider the most immediate reason - personal defense for example - to be the best reason; I have come to believe that the framers gave the best reason.

No matter how uncomfortable I might be with a given situation, I cannot accept infringements on the rights of others so that I might feel safe. It would be wonderful if the college I attend, the high school where my brother teaches, and the schools that my grandchildren attend could see the wisdom of that attitude.

 

[ctdonath]

Would you like mom's husband to live in your neighborhood with the munitions a good many of us take for granted as avid shooters?

Yes.

When "mom's husband" snaps, he's not going to blowing through thousands of rounds, at worst he'll be out there with just 1-2 guns and a few dozen rounds.

I'm not afraid of the man who wants ten nuclear weapons, Colonel. I'm terrified of the man who only wants one. - The Peacemaker
Ditto for the "armed nut": I'm not afraid of the man with 50,000 rounds of ammo and 100 guns ... I'm scared of the cracked nut with a loaded .38 and the intent to abuse it.

The X0,000 rounds some have will not be used in anger.
The X0,000 rounds some have will be used to efficiently use 10 rounds when needed.

 

[madmike]

No matter how limber you are, you can't operate more than 3 guns at once.

 

[F4GIB]

The Knox Report
From the Firearms Coalition

Mind Games
By Jeff Knox

(Manassas, VA, May 8, 2007) On April 30, the Governor of Virginia signed an Executive Order requiring any ruling by a judge or magistrate which says that a person could be a “threat to himself or others” must be reported to the Virginia Crime Statistics Database and shared with the federal government’s National Instant Check System. This would mean that any such person would lose their right to purchase, own, or possess a firearm for the rest of their life (or until a court restores their rights – something that sounds reasonable, but simply never happens.)

No one would suggest that it is sensible or prudent to make it easier for mentally unstable people to acquire firearms. Arguments against increased limitations on access to firearms by the mentally ill can not help but seem – well – crazy. Unfortunately, just because something seems sensible on its face does not mean it truly is sensible and just because an argument is difficult to make does not make it wrong.

The fact that our nation was founded on principles of individual liberty makes it very difficult to force a person who might be struggling with mental issues to get help. The standard way around this bothersome liberty thing is for a judge to declare that the subject might be “a threat to himself or others.” This declaration allows the court to step in and order evaluation or treatment.
Again, this seems reasonable until you consider how low the burden of proof for such a judgment can be. Judges have tended to look at the matter as a rather minor issue; your family or friends are worried about you and you refuse to “get help”… The judge will just send you in so the doctors can take a look at you and see what’s really going on – simple, relatively painless, and rarely any immediate negative impacts.

So anyone that has undergone such an order – ever in their life – now loses their gun rights. Every veteran who was ever forced to undergo treatment for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, every high school or college student who was taken into “protective custody” for threatening suicide, every young man who was ordered to undergo psychiatric evaluation because he enjoys getting into fights a bit too much… Anyone who has ever had a judge use the expedient term “threat to himself and others” would lose their gun rights forever.

Might such a law keep someone like the Virginia Tech murderer from legally purchasing firearms? Possibly; but it won’t stop them from buying guns illegally, or buying a couple of quarts of gasoline, or getting behind the wheel of a car... Meanwhile such a law could prohibit thousands – maybe millions – of perfectly healthy, responsible citizens from exercising one of their enumerated Constitutional rights. All in the hope of impeding that extremely rare, seriously dangerous animal from acquiring a gun as his primary implement of destruction.

Suppressing the rights of the many in hopes of interfering with the activities of the very few, is no way to run a free country.

A recent case at the University of Georgia really makes the point. A 27 year old graduate student made a comment during a meeting with a faculty member which caused that faculty member some alarm. Reports say there was no threat made, just a “troubling comment.” This faculty member’s concern led campus police to seek, and a magistrate to grant, a warrant for the young man to be committed for psychological evaluation.

Police arrived at the young man’s apartment a little after 10:00 that night. Receiving no answer to their knocking, they used a pass-key to enter the apartment. In a back bedroom officers encountered the young man who “threatened” them with a handgun. After identifying themselves and issuing repeated orders, police convinced the man to put down the gun and surrender. He has now been charged with Aggravated Assault on a Police Officer.

Whether this is a case of an involved teacher rescuing a student from himself or a hopolophobe exercising their own paranoia, has yet to be determined. What is truly troubling about this case is that based on nothing more than one person’s assertion, police were able to obtain a search warrant, have the young man declared a “threat to himself and others”, and ordered to undergo a mental health evaluation.

Under the new Virginia rules this young man would lose his gun rights forever – all on the word of one person.

That a judge or magistrate would sign an order and warrant based on the word of a single witness, is down right scary. That such an order would automatically result in the loss of all gun rights – even if the ordered evaluation finds nothing out of order – is indefensible and unacceptable.

Permission to reprint or post this article in its entirety is hereby granted provided this credit is included.

 

[Fulcrum of Evil]

my $0.02:

I am in favor of restricting certainly mentally ill people from owning firearms. Specifically, if you've been forcibly commited to a sanitarium/psych ward, then no guns for you. If you can get a licensed doctor in good standing to testify to your good mental state afterwards (basically say that the reasons for commiting you no longer apply), then your right is restored. This sidesteps the medical record sharing, as it relies on court proceeding and your active solicitation from a psychiatrist - no medical records to release.
[edit: by commit, I'm using the 'danger to self and others' standard, not the BS one that the VA governor just passed]

The Cho thing is a mess - sure he was technically inviolation of federal law, but so what? The law as written was stillborn due to medical privacy laws and a lack of consensus on what mentally ill means. By VA standards, he was legal to buy guns, but skirting the line. Cho is the price of freedom; without the CCW ban on the VT campus, that price would be lower.

> No matter how limber you are, you can't operate more than 3 guns at once.

Shows what you know Computers make it easy.