BryanDavis
Member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2010
- Messages
- 85
What do you guys think about those considered mentally ill owning firearms?
For it?
Against it?
Why?
For it?
Against it?
Why?
Mental Health and Firearms Ownership, what do you think?
- Thread starter BryanDavis
- Start date
- Status
bigfatdave
Member
I think that everyone I personally deem mentally ill shouldn't be allowed near any dangerous object or device.
Superpsy
Member
Alot of this depends on your definition of mentally ill.
Nico Testosteros
Member
Against, of course. Is there even any question?
ColtPythonElite
Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2011
- Messages
- 10,477
There is not black and white answer. It depends on the mental illness you are talking about, the way it affects the inflicted, the treatment the inflicted uses for the illness, and so on. The list is pretty long for combiniations that can be used to base an answer of "for" and "against".
azmjs
member
The mentally ill are the class which it is most important to keep firearms away from.
Smoovbiscuit
Member
Totally depends on the type of mental illness... someone whose schizo? no. anxiety disorder? different story.
kingpin008
Member
Yes, there is. Millions of Americans (including myself) have been diagnosed either currently or in the past with depression. That's a mental illness. Should we be barred from owning a firearm, even though many of us will never, ever consider harming ourselves or others because of it?
Once again, "mentally ill" is a broad definition. It's not as simple as "keep them away from guns".
Also, many types of mental illness (even serious types) can be controlled with medication or therapy. Can you say the same about straight-up criminals?
Ignition Override
Member
Some of us have no idea how to begin the process of "adjudication" for somebody, as was discussed so much after the Tuscon massacre.
451 Detonics
Member
What about chronic alcoholics?
What about those with low IQ?
what about a cured person who's issues were brought on by a curable physical ailment like a brain tumor?
Sounds like a backdoor way to add Jim Crow laws to the books...
What about those with low IQ?
what about a cured person who's issues were brought on by a curable physical ailment like a brain tumor?
Sounds like a backdoor way to add Jim Crow laws to the books...
Onward Allusion
Member
Interesting first post... Ok - I'll play but only if you don't lurk and not answer your own set of questions. Otherwise, people might label you a troll.
What is the definition would be my first question. Are we using DSM IV as the standard here? Mental illness has many shades. Sometimes it is rather subjective, like the student counselor slapping a label on an unruly child.
So, what say you?
LemmyCaution
Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2008
- Messages
- 897
Considering that, historically, the definition of mental illness has been manipulated to include the ruling party's political opponents, I think we're on a very slippery slope.
I think CPE gives a fairly decent answer to the question. But I'd also add: Mentally ill according to whom?
I think CPE gives a fairly decent answer to the question. But I'd also add: Mentally ill according to whom?
hermannr
Member
It definately depends on what is wrong. Mental illness is the same as any other illness, except it affects the mind. It is a chemical imbalance, a tumor, a bacteria, bad reaction to a drug...etc, just like medical illness is. Epilepsy is a mental problem...is it a danger to society, no. Is it treatable, yes.
I will give you an extreme example. Many years ago a young man developed a brain tumor that caused him severe headaches and eventually he brutally murdered his wife. He was sent to a mental institution as criminally insane. While at the mental hospital they finally found the tumor that was causing all these problems, removed it, and he recovered to live a normal life.
Many people (my wife's neurologist says 10-15% of who he sees) have very bad reactions to different drugs, especially SSRI antidepressants and Penicillin, that can cause all kinds of problems including Catatonia (a mental problem where you cannot speak or move voluntarily, and ceasures, another mental problem)
No, I do not think one size fits all when it comes to mental problems, and I also believe that those that do have a mental problem that is dangerous to society, and are treated so that they are no longer have a problem (like the guy with the brain tumor) so no longer be restricted. Think PTSD too with all the guys coming back from a combat zone.
In my mind, only those that are a distinct danger to society in general, should have their access restricted.
If they are a danger only to themselves, you would have to lock them up...too many pills, knives, bridges etc to worry about guns. If someone is determined to take their own life, they will, guns or no guns.
I will give you an extreme example. Many years ago a young man developed a brain tumor that caused him severe headaches and eventually he brutally murdered his wife. He was sent to a mental institution as criminally insane. While at the mental hospital they finally found the tumor that was causing all these problems, removed it, and he recovered to live a normal life.
Many people (my wife's neurologist says 10-15% of who he sees) have very bad reactions to different drugs, especially SSRI antidepressants and Penicillin, that can cause all kinds of problems including Catatonia (a mental problem where you cannot speak or move voluntarily, and ceasures, another mental problem)
No, I do not think one size fits all when it comes to mental problems, and I also believe that those that do have a mental problem that is dangerous to society, and are treated so that they are no longer have a problem (like the guy with the brain tumor) so no longer be restricted. Think PTSD too with all the guys coming back from a combat zone.
In my mind, only those that are a distinct danger to society in general, should have their access restricted.
If they are a danger only to themselves, you would have to lock them up...too many pills, knives, bridges etc to worry about guns. If someone is determined to take their own life, they will, guns or no guns.
phoglund
Member
Not only is there a wide range of mental illnesses but a large population of individuals who would be diagnosed mentally ill if they were evaluated. By defining the rights of an individual based on a medical/psychological diagnosis is a very dangerous road. If an individual is at one time diagnosed 'mentally ill', can that individual ever become diagnosed 'no longer mentally ill'. If so, how? If an individual already has firearms and is then diagnosed, are all the firearms confiscated? How many of the roughly 250 diagnosable disorders should disqualify an individual for firearms ownership?
Considering, "According to the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), approximately 26 percent of American adults over the age of 18 suffer from some type of diagnosable mental disorder in a given year*.", how many people would end up in this 'unable to possess firearms because of a mental illness diagnosis' category?
Would a mental evaluation become a requirement for purchase/license to own a firearm?
Just imagine what the anti-gun lobby could do if most gun owners supported the statement, "The mentally ill are the class which it is most important to keep firearms away from."
*http://psychology.about.com/od/psychotherapy/tp/psychological-disorders.htm
Considering, "According to the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), approximately 26 percent of American adults over the age of 18 suffer from some type of diagnosable mental disorder in a given year*.", how many people would end up in this 'unable to possess firearms because of a mental illness diagnosis' category?
Would a mental evaluation become a requirement for purchase/license to own a firearm?
Just imagine what the anti-gun lobby could do if most gun owners supported the statement, "The mentally ill are the class which it is most important to keep firearms away from."
*http://psychology.about.com/od/psychotherapy/tp/psychological-disorders.htm
Homosexuality used to be listed as a mental illness until the gays stormed the convention of professionals who decide such things. People with Gender Identity Disorder (GID) are still considered mentally ill (transvestites, transsexuals).
If the question was "Do you think a person with a serious mental illness that impairs judgement and/or the ability to know right from wrong should be allowed to have guns?" I'd have to say yes.
But then again, we run into a definition problem. Some religious nuts think homosexuality and GID are worse than child molestation or armed robbery, so they could conceivably disarm such in the future if they got enough support.
I'm not sure there's a good solution.
If the question was "Do you think a person with a serious mental illness that impairs judgement and/or the ability to know right from wrong should be allowed to have guns?" I'd have to say yes.
But then again, we run into a definition problem. Some religious nuts think homosexuality and GID are worse than child molestation or armed robbery, so they could conceivably disarm such in the future if they got enough support.
I'm not sure there's a good solution.
Zaydok Allen
Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2011
- Messages
- 13,274
This is a moot point. How do you define "too mentally ill" to own a firearm?
or a car.....
or a knife....
or a baseball bat......
or a brick.....
or a broken beer bottle......
or a sharp stick.....
"Crazy" people will find some way to hurt other people if that is their intent no matter what you restrict.
If someone has ever been legally commited to a psych. ward, then perhaps. This of course has it's problems and unfair restrictions as well. If you are restricted from owning firearms because you were once commited, what does that say about our treatments for the "mentally ill"?
or a car.....
or a knife....
or a baseball bat......
or a brick.....
or a broken beer bottle......
or a sharp stick.....
"Crazy" people will find some way to hurt other people if that is their intent no matter what you restrict.
If someone has ever been legally commited to a psych. ward, then perhaps. This of course has it's problems and unfair restrictions as well. If you are restricted from owning firearms because you were once commited, what does that say about our treatments for the "mentally ill"?
Upfront Opinion: I don't think that anyone should be prohibited from owning firearms.
Its a power that can't help but be abused. You'll definitely see in the next few years the GCA prohibited persons list being enlarged. It has already been proposed that people on the terrorist watch list be prohibited from purchasing firearms, how long until that nightmare becomes a reality?. Next it will be any misdemeanor is a disqualifier, then any arrest that didn't result in a conviction. Its a slippery slope that so many supposedly pro gun people have supported for years.
Forget the fact that the concept of a "prohibited person" is horribly abused already. I just don't believe that stealing the right to self defense away from someone that is sick is worth the false sense of security that it provides the sheep that support such nonsense.
Aren't we always arguing that laws that prohibit the private ownership of firearms don't make you any more safe? There's some serious hypocrisy here.
Its a power that can't help but be abused. You'll definitely see in the next few years the GCA prohibited persons list being enlarged. It has already been proposed that people on the terrorist watch list be prohibited from purchasing firearms, how long until that nightmare becomes a reality?. Next it will be any misdemeanor is a disqualifier, then any arrest that didn't result in a conviction. Its a slippery slope that so many supposedly pro gun people have supported for years.
Forget the fact that the concept of a "prohibited person" is horribly abused already. I just don't believe that stealing the right to self defense away from someone that is sick is worth the false sense of security that it provides the sheep that support such nonsense.
Aren't we always arguing that laws that prohibit the private ownership of firearms don't make you any more safe? There's some serious hypocrisy here.
HorseSoldier
Member
What other people have said about "define mental illness" and such. There's a significant difference between someone with some low level depression or anxiety issues and someone who gets a live feed of audio from God, space aliens, or the CIA unless they wear their tinfoil hat.
The former -- meh, not so much of an issue, I'd say. For the most part they're probably no mentally healthier or sicker than a lot of other people walking around who aren't getting treatment for the same sort of issues because of cost, perceived stigma of getting treatment, or just feeling like they don't have a problem that requires therapy/meds/whatever.
For the latter -- people prone to delusional states or otherwise not able to moderate and regulate their behavior are people I personally don't want to have access to weapons. Firearms ownership is, fundamentally, a responsibility in addition to whatever else, and people who are medically incapable of behaving responsibly shouldn't have them.
The former -- meh, not so much of an issue, I'd say. For the most part they're probably no mentally healthier or sicker than a lot of other people walking around who aren't getting treatment for the same sort of issues because of cost, perceived stigma of getting treatment, or just feeling like they don't have a problem that requires therapy/meds/whatever.
For the latter -- people prone to delusional states or otherwise not able to moderate and regulate their behavior are people I personally don't want to have access to weapons. Firearms ownership is, fundamentally, a responsibility in addition to whatever else, and people who are medically incapable of behaving responsibly shouldn't have them.
LibShooter
Member
I can see where it might be a good idea to limit access to firearms for some of the most disturbed and dangerous mentally ill people... but the Constitution says, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
It doesn't say just sane people.
So who draws the line, and where does it go? The way I see it, if society hasn't judged you too dangerous to walk among us, you should be free to own a gun. That might get some innocents killed. That's very bad but freedom can be hazardous to your health.
It doesn't say just sane people.
So who draws the line, and where does it go? The way I see it, if society hasn't judged you too dangerous to walk among us, you should be free to own a gun. That might get some innocents killed. That's very bad but freedom can be hazardous to your health.
DammitBoy
Member
If a person with a mental illness has been found to be a danger to themselves or others by a court - yeah I'd support them being barred from firearm ownership.
Since I have a degree in psych I will say, let the doctors decide. Even within any disorder there is a range of severity so it is a very person to person thing. Take two people with the same disorder, one might be so bad they have to be hospitalized often and they have no real life to speak of. Another might be the so normal and lead such a productive life you would never know anything is off.
The media has also ruined public perception. When a person is psychotic for instance, that has nothing to do with violence. It merely means they've lost their grasp on reality. Sort of like being in a dream. Do you initiate violence and murder people in your dreams? Yeah me either.
The media has also ruined public perception. When a person is psychotic for instance, that has nothing to do with violence. It merely means they've lost their grasp on reality. Sort of like being in a dream. Do you initiate violence and murder people in your dreams? Yeah me either.
Frozen North
Member
My experience with "those to crazy to own a gun" is that they quickly find themselves in front of a judge on criminal charges. I have seen this on many occasions. Sometimes drugs cause the crazy, sometimes the crazy causes the drugs. The same is true of violent crimes. Sometimes the crazy causes the violence, sometimes drugs cause the violence.
People who commit violent crimes have a problem between their ears. People who are "normal" do not commit violent acts against other people unless they are acting in self defense.
I have a very close friend whose mother has worked as a nurse in a mental health unit for over 20 years. This subject came up recently when I was visiting with her. She said the people who in her words were "not in control of their actions" were mostly there due to extended use of drugs and were confined due to a judge's order. She also said that people who have legitimate serious mental problems that find themselves in trouble are almost always heavy drug users.
In short, the drugs and the violence point out the people who are really goofed up.
Felonies due to drugs and violence are a near sure fire way to point out who should be excluded from gun ownership in my opinion. Also, those who are sent to mental health/chemical dependance units by a JUDGE are equally in question.
In my friends own admission, she said she had never seen a person who willingly sought help that was a serious danger to themselves or others. She said that these people recognize that there is a problem and they need to take care of it. People who recognize their own problem and take action are still in control.
So I guess my answer is...
Violent or drug crimes... NO
Involuntarily committed... NO
Judged mentally incompetent...NO
Person who voluntarily checks in to get their head right... YES
Voluntarily vs. involuntarily makes all the difference according to my friend.
Involuntarily requires due process of law. No one should ever be deprived of any right without due process of law!!!!!
People who commit violent crimes have a problem between their ears. People who are "normal" do not commit violent acts against other people unless they are acting in self defense.
I have a very close friend whose mother has worked as a nurse in a mental health unit for over 20 years. This subject came up recently when I was visiting with her. She said the people who in her words were "not in control of their actions" were mostly there due to extended use of drugs and were confined due to a judge's order. She also said that people who have legitimate serious mental problems that find themselves in trouble are almost always heavy drug users.
In short, the drugs and the violence point out the people who are really goofed up.
Felonies due to drugs and violence are a near sure fire way to point out who should be excluded from gun ownership in my opinion. Also, those who are sent to mental health/chemical dependance units by a JUDGE are equally in question.
In my friends own admission, she said she had never seen a person who willingly sought help that was a serious danger to themselves or others. She said that these people recognize that there is a problem and they need to take care of it. People who recognize their own problem and take action are still in control.
So I guess my answer is...
Violent or drug crimes... NO
Involuntarily committed... NO
Judged mentally incompetent...NO
Person who voluntarily checks in to get their head right... YES
Voluntarily vs. involuntarily makes all the difference according to my friend.
Involuntarily requires due process of law. No one should ever be deprived of any right without due process of law!!!!!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
