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

[Kentucky]

You can see the obvious dilemma though - if you argue that anyone who can't be trusted with a firearm be locked up, then you are arguing for a great deal of Americans to be locked up.

I can see that this is a tough issue. And yes, there are sacrifices to make in any direction. No, I am not saying that anyone be locked up unless they have committed a crime. You cannot convict someone of a crime before they have committed it, and punish them by either locking them up or infringing on their rights to keep and bear arms. "Mental illness" is far to subjective of a condition to allow the government to prevent people from owning a gun based on that criteria.

The real danger, is that that the definition of mental illness can be too easily broadened to include too many people, and be used to infringe on more peoples rights. More government is not the solution to this problem.

 

[JCF]

Who gets to define "mentally ill"?

The American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Psychological Association.

Despite the ongoing argument that mental illness is a variable term, the definition of severe mental illness as utilized to effect restriction of freedom, viz., the criteria for commitment, has remained the same for approximately 40+ years; uncontrolled (or persistent transient uncontrollability of) schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder, or depressive disorder, and accompanying and compelling acts and/or expressions of imminent risk of causing greivous physical injury or death to themselves or another person.

and the consequences thereof?

Where the condition results in the display of compelling acts and/or expressions of imminent risk of causing greivous physical injury or death to themselves or another person; typically a judge, within the context of an adversarial process, and after having received information and recommendation from law enforcement, family, attorneys, and mental health clinicians.

Which errors would you rather live with? nuts with guns? or disarming the sane?

First of all, we do not abandon systems of public safety due to the possibility of an error being committed. If we did, there would be no law enforcement, no military, no emergency medicine, no child welfare, etc.

Secondly, I am curious as to your perception of exactly how the system is likely to disarm "the sane".

 

[JCF]

Before all the gun controls were enacted back in the early 60's and you could walk into a department store and buy a gun without permits or licences how much of a problem did we have with mentally ill people getting guns and going on shooting sprees?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Unruh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Starkweather

Vermont has basically no restrictions and they always rank as one of the safest places in the nation.

And if you banned gun ownership in Vermont nothing would be likely to change. Irvine, California has stringent gun control laws and is one of the safest cities in the nation... and it is in Southern California. If you gave them CCW I doubt it would impact much. Big deal. The presence or absence of gun laws aren't likely causal in either situation.

 

[Mumwaldee]

I didn't know Starkweather was "mentally ill" other than being mean as a snake and stupid. May as well add Bonnie and Clyde to your list.

As for Irvine. California touts 4 of the top 10 wealthiest cities in America...I'm sure Irvine isn't too far down the list. I wonder if the folks over in Oakland want firearms for home protection.

 

[JCF]

I didn't know Starkweather was "mentally ill" other than being mean as a snake and stupid. May as well add Bonnie and Clyde to your list.

So cross him off. Even in his absence, I will assure you that profound mental illness and resultant criminal behavior existed prior to the GCA of 1968.

As for Irvine. California touts 4 of the top 10 wealthiest cities in America...I'm sure Irvine isn't too far down the list. I wonder if the folks over in Oakland want firearms for home protection.

And Vermont is a rural, low population density, 98% racially homogeneous, low income disparity state. Like Irvine, there are just a few more factors than gun laws (or the absence thereof) influencing the crime rate.

Waco, TX, in my home state, has the benefits of CCW and a generally firearm friendly culture, yet there seems to be just a wee bit of a crime problem. Do you suppose it is due to the need for firearm restriction? No, of course not.

***Edit: As an aside... I'm not sure how entrenched I would become in the idea that wealth equates to safety if I were you; given the fact that, according to the US Census Bureau, the top ten wealthiest cities in America are San Jose, CA, Anchorage, AK, San Francisco, CA, Virginia Beach, VA, Anaheim, CA, Raleigh, NC, Seattle, WA, Washington DC, and Honoulu, HI (Oakland, CA is number 11 by the way).

 

[Mumwaldee]

The San Francisco/Oakland area is also one of the most expensive places to live in the U.S.

 

[Geister]

It's not about prohibiting anyone with a mental illness. It's about prohibiting anyone with severe mental illness. Someone with OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder) is not in the same boat as someone with Bipolar Disorder (used to be known as Manic-Depressive Disorder).

The problem with that statement is several of those disorders are caused by the same chemical imbalance, run into one another, and there's a reall blurry line distinguishing the two.

But this has little to do with mental illness anyway. If someone has a murderous intent to kill, denying him a firearms purchase is not going to stop him. Guys like Cho would have killed regardless of whether they could have bought a firearm legally or not. He didn't care about being legal.

By telling the government that you support adding mental records into NICS you are telling them that they have the power to regulate firearms. They won't stop at just regulating mental patients. With guys like Obama they'll go as far as they can to take as many firearms from as many people as possible.

THAT is why the Second Amendment exists; to protect us from that. The gun grabbers are always looking for more ways to restrict firearms and we shouldn't give it to them.

 

[JCF]

The San Francisco/Oakland area is also one of the most expensive places to live in the U.S.

According to the Brookings Institute:

Approximately 13% of the population of Irvine lives below the poverty line.

Approximately 15% of the population of San Francisco lives below the poverty line.

Approximately 17% of the population of Oakland lives below the poverty line.

Economics are definitely a major contributing factor to crime, but not exclusively causal.

Wealth does not equate to safety Mumwaldee.

 

[Mumwaldee]

Economics are definitely a major contributing factor to crime, but not exclusively causal.

Wealth does not equate to safety Mumwaldee.

Mental illness is not a major contributing factor to gun crime.

Gun control does not equate to safety CFriesen.

 

[MrDig]

Here we Go Again

As I have stated in previous threads and will reiterate in this one, The definition of Mentally Ill needs Standardization as do the reporting Criteria for those Adjuducated Mentally Ill.
No I don't believe EVERYBODY who gets mental health treatment needs to be reported to DOJ for the purpose of the NICS requirements.

 

[Mumwaldee]

Approximately 17% of the population of Oakland lives below the poverty line.

On an off note, Oakland being 11th(your info) wealthiest city in the U.S. and having almost 1 in 5 people living below the poverty level may mean something...I'm not sure what one could infer.

 

[JCF]

Mental illness is not a major contributing factor to gun crime.

Mental illness in its entirery does not.

Individuals who have been diagnosed with severe and uncontrolled, or transient uncontrollabiliity of, mental illness (schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder, major depression) and accompanying compelling displays and/or expressions of danger to self and/or others (aggression or suicidality) to the extent that involuntary hospitalization has been necessitated represent a major contributing factor to both violent crime and suicide.

That is the crux of the issue.

No one gives a hoot about the fact that you or anyone in your family or circle of friends has ADD, insomnia, anxiety, erectile dysfunction, fetishes, etc...

People are very fond of stating "1 in 4 persons is mentally ill". The reality of the situation is that the rate of adjudication of DANGER TO SELF OR OTHERS AS A RESULT OF SEVERE MENTAL ILLNESS, and resultant involuntary hospitalization is less than the rate of incarceration for violent crime in this country.

 

[Mumwaldee]

No one gives a hoot about the fact that you or anyone in your family or circle of friends has ADD, insomnia, anxiety, erectile dysfunction, fetishes, etc...

Wait...you mean...OHHHH I totally misunderstood the question. Next topic...Violins On TV.

I'm bipolar. I care about this law. I do not care to be judged by the state's doctor to see if he thinks I am too dangerous to exercise my rights. And you say, the strengthening of NICS doesn't DO that...and I say IT NEVER WILL if I can help it.

All it WILL do is turn a lot of otherwise law-abiding citizens into felons for not going quietly.

 

[JCF]

On an off note, Oakland being 11th(your info) wealthiest city in the U.S. and having almost 1 in 5 people living below the poverty level may mean something...I'm not sure what one could infer.

I'm not sure what you'd like to infer, but knock yourself out.

What it means is that Oakland's population, if interpreted very oversimplistically by regarding those residing over/under the poverty line, is apprx. 2% more affluent than that of Phoenix, 5% more affluent than that of Chicago, apprx. 6% more affluent than that of NYC, Los Angeles or Minneapolis, apprx. 10% more affluent than that of Boston, Dallas and Houston, apprx. 12% more affluent than that of Newark or St. Louis, and apprx. 15% more affluent than that of Miami.

 

[JCF]

I do not care to be judged by the state's doctor to see if he thinks I am too dangerous to exercise my rights.

You are judged by more than "the state's doctor" firstly. It is an adversarial system.

Secondly, few persons subjected to scruting by any reulatory body actually care for it. It's just part of living in a society where order is mandated by regulation and systems of enforcement.

Simply saying "don't judge me" doesn't cut it in our society I'm afraid.

I'm bipolar. I care about this law.

All it WILL do is turn a lot of otherwise law-abiding citizens into felons for not going quietly.

Only if they (you) have previously presented a compelling display and/or expression of danger to self and/or others (aggression or suicidality) to the extent that involuntary hospitalization was been necessitated in order to prevent violent crime and/or suicide.

And you don't become a felon by the way. Unless of course you commit a felony which is not due to your mental illness.

 

[RIDE]

compelling display

So... What IS considered a "compelling display"???

Who exactly decides what is "compelling"???

If say Mumwaldee gets in an argument with someone... is that compelling??? What if gets in fist fight with someone??? Does he now lose he RKBA???

 

[Mumwaldee]

You are judged by more than "the state's doctor" firstly. It is an adversarial system.

Secondly, few persons subjected to scruting by any reulatory body actually care for it. It's just part of living in a society where order is mandated by regulation and systems of enforcement.

Simply saying "don't judge me" doesn't cut it in our society I'm afraid.

Mandates, regulations and systems. More government in my life so people can buy into the fallacy that taking my firearms will make them safer at night. All it really means is my rights mean nothing and I'll be left defenseless if they had their way.

I only wish you could foresee 500 years into the future of your idealistic utopia following the "government knows best" guidelines. I never said "don't judge me"...judge me all you want...when I break the law...until then leave me to get on with my pursuit of happiness.

*pursuit of happiness. More of those pesky inalienable rights...if a court/doctor so deems.

 

[MrDig]

Man does this get tired

Adjudicated Metally Incompetent/Ill/Defective does not mean any persons recieving therapy and or taking medications for mental illness.
It means person/s who were for what ever reason taken to court to stand before a Judge.
In the court procedings these person/s were then ordered to an assesment / evaluation by a Psychiatrist and or a Psychologist, a person has the right to multiple assesments so that an assesor independant of the court system can present an evaluation as well.
Subsequently due to the results of said evaluation person/s are ordered by the court to undergo therapy in an enclosed hospital environment or in a clinic outpatient environment.
Persons excluded from the requirement to be reported are as follows,
A: Persons Voluntarily recieving therapy based on the person/s own recognition of the need for same.
B: Person/s not mandated to therapy by previous judicial assesment.
C: Person/s Voluntarily undergoing therapy for Alcohol and or Substance abuse.
That is the paraphrase of what happens here in Minnesota Seems pretty cut and dried. I for one do not want Every stinking Single person ever to enter into therapy reported as it would include ME. I want persons forced into therapy by Judicial Mandate to be reported. Just as persons forced into prison are reported if they commit certain crimes.
Do you really honestly want a paranoid schizophrenic in a decomensated state to be able to purchase a firearm?

 

[Mumwaldee]

Do you really honestly want a paranoid schizophrenic in a decomensated state to be able to purchase a firearm?

Are you really going to support the seizure of firearms from law abiding citizens?

 

[MrDig]

How does that figure in to this conversation? I want to prevent Schizophrenics from PURCHASING firearms. Which is what the NICS and the DOJ are attempting to do. If they are Adjudicated Mentally Ill they are in court for commiting a crime no matter how Minor, Otherwise they would not be in court in the First Place!!!!!

 

[Mumwaldee]

I can spin and pontificate as well. At no time did I say anything about it being ok for delusional paranoid schizos to purchase firearms. I'm talking about vague standards that can easily be redefined after the NICS program is strengthened and funded. I'm talking about abusing people's rights that have no criminal history. If you don't think this law has the potential for massive abuse then you are very trusting of your government.

 

[MrDig]

I am not advocating the seizure of firearms from citizens who already own them.
As a personal aside while I was in Treatment for "Polysubstance Abuse" and in therapy for depression I gave my guns to my oldest brother for safekeeping. We have a standing agreement that If I am ever hospitalized again for either of these conditions He Gets my Guns out of my house before I get home from the Hospital. They are not returned until we are both Satisfied that it is OK.

 

[JCF]

So... What IS considered a "compelling display"???

In the vast majority of cases... actions which necessitate intervention and subsequent detention by the police in order to ensure that an individual does not succesfully do what he has attempted to do, or threatened to do, and which constitutes an imminent danger to the life of himself or others.

Examples

Who exactly decides what is "compelling"???

Things that are sufficiently dangerous and reasonably within the capability of the individual.

An 80 year old indigent schizophrenic man in a wheelchair in Beaumont, Texas stating "I am going to blow up the Space Needle" is NOT compelling.

A 23 year old bi-polar man with two prior hospitalizations, a mother who committed suicide, a prior suicide attempt himself, and a history of beating his girlfriend calling the crisis line and saying "I am going to cut my girlfriend's throat and set our apartment complex on fire" IS compelling.

If say Mumwaldee gets in an argument with someone... is that compelling???

A verbal argument without realistic threats? No. Even if it is due to mental illness. At worst he is a public nuisance.

What if gets in fist fight with someone???

Depends on his history, how bad the fight is, what the circumstances are, etc. If he punches the girl at McDonalds in the face for not giving him a napkin, then runs into the parking lot screaming at the police to kill him, and they have to tase him to subdue him, arrest him and determine that he has not been taking his medication for three months, repeatedly hospitalized for the last five years, etc. Yes... that's compelling.

If the guy behind him at the Vikings game spills Coke on him and he turns around and punches him with no other aggravating issues... no, probabaly not. Although he will probably be charged with assault and lose his RKBA anyway.

Does he now lose he RKBA???

Depends.

 

[Mumwaldee]

If he punches the girl at McDonalds in the face for not giving him a napkin, then runs into the parking lot screaming at the police to kill him, and they have to tase him to subdue him,

I said NO pickles!!!!

 

[JCF]

Are you really going to support the seizure of firearms from law abiding citizens?

If they are in a state of uncontrolled (or persistent transient uncontrollability of) schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder, or depressive disorder, and demonstrating accompanying and compelling acts and/or expressions of imminent risk of causing greivous physical injury or death to themselves or another person....

yes... damn straight.