Marching down the Path of Mental Health

[Polishrifleman]

Is this a direction we want to follow for RTKBA or should be be very wary?

I think all of us have had a moment when our mental stability could be challenged not just by ourselves but by someone around us who may or PROBABLY doesn't know us. When do the lines become blurred.

Currently it is very clear in regards to the definition of "mental health" in regards to firearms ownership, just as it is "felons".

How difficult is it going to be when you go on anti-depresents when you lose a loved one or when your Ritilan (sp) perscribed child comes of age to obtain or keep your guns. Our personal medical records are at risk and Mental Health is a lot more touchy and abstract than being charged with a Felony. Are we going to have to go to trial to prove our Mental Health over gun ownership, it's bad enough that our kids are wanting their inheritance or to wonder why you gave muffy (the dog) half.

 

[Clipper]

You're making a mountain from a molehill. The law reads you must be committed by a court to be prohibited. Unless and until that changes, I can live with those criteria, just as I can live with the felon rule as it now reads.

 

[ArmedBear]

Every 20th Century totalitarian regime used "mental health" as an excuse for rounding people up and incarcerating or killing them. Something to consider.

How difficult is it going to be when you go on anti-depresents when you lose a loved one

Don't. There's the answer. Don't.

Get your emotional **** together now, before it happens, because it WILL happen. If you need anti-depressants, you weren't prepared for an inevitable fact of life.

And as far as Ritalin, throw that **** away and make the kid exercise. I'd need it too if I didn't.

When they're done chopping a cord of wood, playing soccer, hiking, hunting, lifting weights, riding a bike all around town, and running with the dog for an hour, THEN see if the kids are still hyperactive.

 

[Polishrifleman]

I understand the current reading, what I am concerned about is the changing of that definition. The definition of a fellon will never change, what is considered a fellony crime changes daily.

What has me concerned is the first thing anyone examining these shootings looks at is the mental makeup of the shooter. How did they fall through society's cracks, how can we help these people, blah, blah, blah.

 

[Sage of Seattle]

The law reads you must be committed by a court to be prohibited.

If I remember correctly, in several past (though recent) threads on THR, there are many states that do not require a court to commit a person in order to have their CPL revoked for mental health reasons. In fact, when you really get right down to the nuts and bolts of the involuntary commitment process, there isn't any clear definition of 'involuntary.' But Sage, you say, isn't it quite obvious when the cops come and haul you down to the loony bin "for your own protection" that it's involuntary? To you I say, yes of course, but the laws say that the first 72 hours are a freebie, so the state can more fully examine you to properly address the circumstances in which you find yourself. If the doctors find you to be a danger to yourself or others and your own shrinks can't prove otherwise in court, then it's a committment, right? But what if you're hauled in to the loony bin and then YOU AGREE WITH THEM and sign a paper so stating and waive any court hearing because YOU AGREE WITH THEM, then now is it involuntary? For the sake of argument, let's say you think you really are suicidal, get help and become a normal productive member of society once again and years later discover that because of the cops coming over, the social workers coming out and saying you should be evaluated for 72 hours, you've now lost FOREVER a portion of your civil rights.

This is how it is under the current system. Tell me, Clipper, how does one remain ever vigilant and jealously guard our rights when many things are so easily dismissed as "making a mountain out of a molehill"? I'm not trying to challenge you or berate you personally, just curious at what level something like this would have to rise for you think it was too much?

 

[Standing Wolf]

Only crazy people would want guns. Crazy people can't have guns.

 

[Clipper]

Listen, Sage. My wife, on more than one occasion several years ago (before I came into the picture) checked herself into mental facilities...She has had her CPL for 3 years now. It's a non-issue. The day someone comes to collect it claiming those episodes, I guess I'll know something's wrong. As for now, I agree with the statutory limitations. I'll also have you know that qualification for a CPL is more stringent than to simply buy a firearm. In Michigan, a DUI within 8 years will disqualify...

Then again, there are those who must sit around for hours thinking of stuff to bring up here to work up someone...anyone...!

...And Armed Bear...BRAVO!...Tell it like it is. It's not just kids who seem to have to believe that everything is someone or something else's fault. Hey, I don't like sucking it up and dealing with life? I drink? I smoke? I take drugs? Well I don't have any character flaws, I have a disease! Gimme a pill!

 

[JohnBT]

"The definition of a fellon will never change"

It changes constantly as new crimes are made felonies.

John

 

[Zundfolge]

Every 20th Century totalitarian regime used "mental health" as an excuse for rounding people up and incarcerating or killing them. Something to consider.

Indeed!

I see a coming trend where politically motivated "psychologists" get laws changed to where they have the power to decide which basic human rights you get to exercise based solely on their definition of "mental health issues" (keep in mind that to many hard core leftists, NOT being a leftist is a sign of mental illness ... desiring to own a firearm is a sign of mental illness ... believing in God is a sign of mental illness, etc).


Just read the Rand quote in my sig, then re-read it replacing references to "criminals" with references to "the mentally ill".

 

[ArmedBear]

Have 4 shots of whiskey every night when you get home, to "deal with" the stress of work? You're an alcoholic.

Take prescribed psychoactive drugs every day to "deal with" the stress of work? No problem.

 

[Kentucky]

You're making a mountain from a molehill. The law reads you must be committed by a court to be prohibited. Unless and until that changes, I can live with those criteria, just as I can live with the felon rule as it now reads.

Can you not see that gun control is an incremental process, and that each inch we "give" them becomes a mile. Can you not see how easily a liberal court/judge/prosecuter/official can misapply that law to prevent someone from legally owning firearms?

 

[Zundfolge]

You're making a mountain from a molehill. The law reads you must be committed by a court to be prohibited. Unless and until that changes, I can live with those criteria, just as I can live with the felon rule as it now reads.

All they have to do is keep lowering the threshold for commitment ... just like they've lowered the threshold for what constitutes a felony.

Once upon a time all felonies were serious crimes ... now there are felonies on the books that are the moral equivalent of jaywalking.

 

[revjen45]

Note that antidepressants are also used as an adjunctive therapy for treatment of chronic pain. Amitryptaline, nefazodone, and duloxetine (Cymbalta) among others are used, often in combination with opioids or anti-inflammatories for pain management on a long-term basis. Cymbalta is a specific for diabetic neuropathy. Chronic pain when not properly treated often or usually leads to depression. Some meds for depression cause suicidal ideations. Are we seeing a pattern here? Tell your doc the drugs they give you are causing thoughts of suicide and see how long it takes to be taken in for "observation." And no- I have not been in a mental institution for any reason. I can, however, foresee a day when treatment for life-altering constant pain will be used to deny people their rights

 

[Gifted]

The problem is, of course, the prosecutor bringing in a quack who says whatever is a danger, and gets you locked up. Sure you can appeal, but that's a whole lot of hassle.

The question here isn't "What would Charlton Heston do?" it's "What will Hillary do?" And that answer is something no one here can deny.

 

[Orthonym]

As someone who's pretty sure that he's either on the autistic end of "normal" or the normal-like end of the autistic spectrum, this kind of thing frightens me.

'specially considering that the TSA is thinking of installing "attitude inspectors" at airports, etc. I have been thought to be lying when telling the truth, and gotten away with a few bold-faced lies because a normal person could not read my body language.

(I do feel badly about the lies.)

 

[BridgeWalker]

I think that a big part of the problem could be alleviated by gun folks adjusting thier own attitudes. Spotted today on THR: "...or some kind of mental illness." wrt to ccw. See things like that most days. Also problematic: the idea that a good/strong/smart person never needs help for an emotional problem--a couple drinks with a good buddy or a morning in church wil cure all that ails you. BS.

Yeah, there are mentally ill people who probably shouldn't hang around with guns too much. Pretty much, people who are homocidal and people who are completely detached from reality. This is a tiny portion of all mentally ill people and a tinier portion of all people who have ever had a mental illness.

And yeah, plenty of people--largely urban liberals--will seek psych help/medication because they are distraught over their goldfish's traumatic death. But some people, for wahtever reason, somewhere between chemistry and overwhelming life experiences, do need some help. Yeah, if it can be avoided, it probably is wise to do so, but that is not always the best plan. Sometimes a person can have a serious mental illness and yet be perfectly safe with a gun. Heck, I'll take an OCD shooting buddy any day of the week (until he start counting the brass...).

Also, the gun community tends to be pretty conservative. This tends to mean that mental illness, as in years past, is still treated like something shameful, to be kept hidden.

 

[Prince Yamato]

If you're stressed, I highly recommend Alcohol and Tobacco to cure your ills. Cigars (particularly 7"+ Macanudos) are very relaxing, yet mild. Try one with a glass of Smoking Lune Merlot.

Personally, I'd rather teens started using nicotine to calm their nerves than Ritalin. Man has been smoking tobacco for over 10,000 years. We know its health effects. Who the hell knows what the long term effects of Ritalin are.

Here's another idea: people need to stop airing every strange thought they have to their friends or posting it on the internet. "Dude, I just had this dream I ripped the skin off a guy's face! Sweet huh? Oh, it's 4:30, gotta pick up my Glock before the gun shop closes." You know, you may have left out the fact that you just watched Dawn of the Dead, but how would someone else know that?

I think we'd all be better if we talked less and drank and smoked more. I also think we could learn something from the Europeans by working fewer weeks out of the year. I think that would be a far greater contributer to mental health than psychoactive drugs.

 

[Pax Jordana]

How difficult is it going to be when you go on anti-depresents when you lose a loved one or when your Ritilan (sp) perscribed child comes of age to obtain or keep your guns.

I'm seeing a parallel to criminals not obeying gun laws - the people that ask for help aren't the ones in danger. The people that have help forced upon them, or have problems but avoid getting the help, are the ones that become more, ahem, famous.

That's a good reason to go armed - maybe Darwin had a good point after all.

Our personal medical records are at risk

No they're not, unless you give powerful people very good reasons to look into them. Ask someone you know in healthcare exactly how many hoops you have to jump through, and exactly what variety thereof, to legally get hold of someone's medical records against their will. You'd need to have the whole system allied against you, and if it gets to that point then appearing normal will be the least of your worries.

 

[Zundfolge]

Also, the gun community tends to be pretty conservative. This tends to mean that mental illness, as in years past, is still treated like something shameful, to be kept hidden.

In addition, a lot of us conservative gun folk see "mental illness" used as an excuse for bad behavior and flawed character ... and many of us fear that "mental illness" will become the label for disagreeing with liberals.

Frankly both the government and these so-called psychiatric professionals need to leave people alone ... honestly they both tend to do more harm than good.

My guess is that the mall shooter (and maybe even the church shooter) had his head filled with a lot of psychobabble BS that told him he wasn't responsible for his anti-social thoughts/attitudes and that he could be cured with chemicals.

 

[BridgeWalker]

In addition, a lot of us conservative gun folk see "mental illness" used as an excuse for bad behavior and flawed character ... and many of us fear that "mental illness" will become the label for disagreeing with liberals.

Then we would be well-advised to stop using the blanket term "mental illness" as a reason why someone shouldn't have a gun.

Which is what I was saying in my post. As the number of "mentally ill" people grows, so that more and more people are or could be included in that catagory, we should *seriously* step back from using verbiage that suggests we think all "mentally ill" people shouldn't use guns.

We should perhaps use the phrase "psychotic" or "very seriously mentally ill" or "disconnected from reality" or "homocidal" to describe folks who are truly not with it to be armed.

Because as long as we show agreement with the notion that "mentally ill" people should lose thier rights, we are inviting exactly what you fear--liberals deciding that all of us are mentally ill and can't have guns.

The priority shouldn't be refusing to recognize that mental illness exists, but on refusing to recognize that the mere label "mental illness" should compromise one's 2a rights.

 

[Tinker2]

“Quote:
Our personal medical records are at risk”

“No they're not, unless you give powerful people very good reasons to look into them. Ask someone you know in healthcare exactly how many hoops you have to jump through, and exactly what variety thereof, to legally get hold of someone's medical records against their will. You'd need to have the whole system allied against you, and if it gets to that point then appearing normal will be the least of your worries.”


You ever go to the VA?

Our troops from Iraq ( a lot of them, trouble sleeping and the like ) will be treated the same as for mental illness.
Should they be denied the same rights we have?


Tinker2