Guns in the hands of the mentally ill

[RavenVT100]

How many anti-gun therapists out there do you think would automatically classify any of their gun owning patients with a mental illness to eleminate their RKBA?

I'm sure plenty would. Not all of them, but plenty of them.

It's frightening that there's no due process involved. A person's rights are taken away because of what someone else says, and it's never questioned or reviewed. Just a simple diagnosis, and then that person never gets to own a gun for the rest of their lives.

It's a Democrat's wet dream.

 

[Shrinkmd]

Here in NJ

I think that one of the restrictions is if you have ever been involuntarily hospitalized for psychiatric illness. I'll have to check that, although I think on the yellow form it asks all kind of nosey questions about being in any form of mental health treatment.

It is difficult to be committed against your will without being pretty sick. It's hard to get in the hospital nowadays unless you are intent on hurting yourself, someone else, unable to care for yourself, or a danger to property. By law people have to be offered voluntary admission.

 

[jamz]

Like most people here, I abhor the idea of the government deciding who is mentally ill and who is not. Ever looked through the DSM-IV? It's pretty big.

A law based on specific diagnoses is silly because diagnoses change from time to time. For instance, Homosexuality used to be a diagnosable mental illness in the DSM II or thereabouts. Who among us would deny a gay his/her guns? No one! That's right!

This also points out how inconsistent and often flawed MI diangoses is.

This being said, I could almost get behind a law based on involuntary commitment to a psychaitric facility- you don't get committed there unless you have some serious cognative/reasoning difficulties. THe downsde to this is that it a) goes against my fundamental belief that all persons have a right to self defense, and b) occaisionally, one can have a psychotic episode which one recovers from, and which never re-occurrs. These people would be SOL with a law based on involuntary commitment.

-James

 

[RavenVT100]

Look, the problem here is that with any "MI" issue, you've got varying degrees of severity. A paper cut is by no means nearly as severe as three broken ribs. Yet in both cases a person is "injured."

What we have here is the same thing. If a person is the victim of a violent assault, let's say, and suffers a temporary "adjustment problem" or whatever it is the doctors would call it as a result, sure, they might be "MI" from a technical perspective. Meanwhile, someone with a severe organic brain problem is also technically "MI" as well.

 

[Lupinus]

There are people who shouldn't own firearms. But you send most anyone to therpy and ods are the Dr. will find some mental disorder. Just like felony being used in ways it shouldn't so does mental order these days. There are people who need medication and there are people who just need to be smacked and told to stop whinning and grow up. And I definatly don't support the feds having open access to my medical records.

 

[Desertdog]

No sane person on either side of the gun debate can reasonably argue that the instant check is not a good idea.

Does this ring a bell?
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It says nothing about MI being a reason not be armed.

That said, I agree that some MIs should not have firearms.

Keeping firearms away from MIs would be about as difficult as keeping a firearm away from a crook. If they could not obtain one from a gun dealer they would buy it off the street, with no NIC check nor waiting period.

 

[Ellie]

For instance, Homosexuality used to be a diagnosable mental illness in the DSM II or thereabouts.

Yes, and now my darling blog-addict husband tells me that the psych community is discussing making extreme bias against homosexuals a mental illness. Glenn Reynolds offers that perhaps we should recognize turning p.c. opinions into pseudoscience as a mental illness.

(Note: I like most individuals who are gay just fine and what other people do is just none of my bidness if it doesn't hurt me. However, I do work in a University and am wading to the chin in PC BS).

Ah yes, but I did have a point, didn't I? Oh yeah - if you look too closely at public safety (and public health) danged near -everything- should be regulated, banned, or otherwise meted. I am not saying that it's a good idea to give people with uncontrolled schitzophrenia AKs. But last I heard, there is no good definition of 'mental illness' on the books, so this strikes me as scary.

Plus, I'd hate for people to not get help if they need it, for fear of it being in their record. I've seen a shrink before, because of a bad breakup and anxiety due to working with a bunch of crazy liberals while working towards tenure. I am not mentally ill by any stretch (shut up, ArmedBear! stop laughing or I'll dye all your clothes pink!). In order for insurance to cover it, she -had- to code it with some DSM-IV designation. I think it was something like 'general affective disorder,' but still . . .