Mental Health and Firearms Ownership, what do you think?

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

I do not believe in a "2nd Amendment Exception". You don't forfeit your other rights when you are declared "mentally ill". And as other have noted, how is that defined? And who will define it?

 

[baylorattorney]

If they have a mental health history of illness they should not be allowed to purchase or possess a firearm for their own safety and ours. Once a medical professional deems them no longer mentally ill - then ok.

 

[NoobCannon]

There's more of a problem with diagnosing mental illness and discovering it early than with taking guns away from the ones already insane.

Just so you know, a relative of mine recently committed suicide by way of double-barrel twelve gauge.

He showed no mental problems beforehand, no signs of stress, nothing. Just one day lost it. He tried to kidnap a girl, shot a man, and ended up killing himself. His funeral was today, and I was unable to attend due to work.

Is it the gun's fault? No. Is it his? I'm not in the position to be the judge of that. No one will really ever know what was going through his mind(please refrain from any and all buckshot jokes). What we need in this country is not more ways to take away people's rights. We need better ways to help those that need help.

 

[Tim the student]

What do you guys think about those considered mentally ill owning firearms?

For it?

Against it?

Why?

Heck of a first post. Care to tell us more about yourself? Maybe your views on the matter?

Welcome to THR - I think.

 

[LibShooter]

The weight of interpreted law going back to about the day after the Constitution went into effect does not support your conclusion in regards to persons who demonstrate themselves to be a risk to themselves or others because of inability or unwillingness to behave in accordance with the law.

Of course. I'm saying that, IMHO, all that interpretation is wrong. The Constitution says what it says. But common sense says certain folk shouldn't have access to arms. I think we've engaged in years of willful self delusion about the Constitution to make ourselves feel safer.

Rather like how your freedom of speech ends right before you shout fire in a crowded theater just to see people run about in a panic.

That analogy doesn't quite hold up. There are laws restricting your right to shoot off your mouth in certain places or at certain times. But you are always allowed to possess a mouth.

Laws restricting where and when you can shoot off a gun are completely constitutional. Laws against possession of gun are not. The right to keep and bear is protected... the right to fire is not.

 

[BikerRN]

Since I have a degree in psych I will say, let the doctors decide.

That's fine until you have a doctor with an agenda or one that mis-diagnoses a patient. That never happens does it?

If you are not locked up, either in a mental institution or penal institution I am of the belief that you should be free to own, purchase, and use firearms.

BikerRN

 

[GWARGHOUL]

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.

You are aware that there is no organic proof of mental illness, right? I'm certainly not denying its existence. I'm just saying its not quite what you expect.

Money is in treatment, not cure. I don't know a single psychiatrist that has ever cured anyone. For one thing, its still on the experimental front compared to physically tangible illness/disease. The second thing is....its a multi-billion dollar industry. Its not in any Psychiatrists best financial interest to "discharge cured" a patient.

And to the guy who mentioned I.Q....

What about those with low IQ?

I think I've said this here before, but I.Q. is not an intelligence test, and is legally only used for testing academic intelligence capabilities, and sometimes to indicate developmental disabilities. It is not a metric of any other sort of intelligence or capability. So, I think its dangerous that Old Bill might have an 78 I.Q., but be one of the most reasonable, rational people you have ever met, and use some un-related metrics to determine one's qualifications for constitutional rights.

 

[ZCORR Jay]

This topic is an extremely difficult one to say the least. How do you know a person is crazy until they actually do something crazy? If someone has a history like the Virgina Tech wing nut did well then maybe they should be prevented from owning firearms. But with that said, the AZ kid had signs of being a bit off his rocker but know one knew he was going to do what he did.

If a person has been treated for depression and/ or has tried suicide do you take away guns, knives, cars, pills, rope, and everything else they could potentially hurt themselves with? Where do you draw the line with that one?

 

[GWARGHOUL]

That's fine until you have a doctor with an agenda or one that mis-diagnoses a patient. That never happens does it?

Happens all the time, actually. Comes back down to there being no solid organic proof. Psychiatry is not an empirical science.

The same person under the same situation might receive 6 different diagnosis from 3 different doctors. This person also may really be pretty normal. Its a real money maker for Psychiatrists to get your average Joe who has had a hard month, or a bad week into a few years of monthly or bi-monthly treatment with an anti-depressant from a company that he owns stock in, and/or gets kickbacks from.


This is a sensitive topic for me, for many reasons.

I'm about to reveal a lot of personal information, in the name of education and showing how common some of this stuff is, and the latter (me) and my b.s. diagnosis.

Mental illness is prevalent on my father's side. My grandmother was bi-polar schizo-effective. Her dad was supposedly schizophrenic, and actually had a partial lobotomy (Psychiatry at its finest, there... the guy was practically a zombie afterwards, naturally).

I have an uncle that is adjudicated criminally insane (committed some nasty crimes, and is schizophrenic) ..has been institutionalized for 23 years now.

My dad has dystymenia (2 or more years of chronic depression)and motivational disorders. He's also fallen into self medication via various substances at different stages in his life.

Me? Well, at 6 years old some quack decided to mess with adolescent brain chemistry (this was the late 80's/early 90's, and there is plenty of scholarly and medical journals about this ritalin kid era)...
I was excitable, and energetic. God forbid. I spent a month in a psychiatric hospital when I was like 7 years old. They labeled me ADD.

A few years later, I got into some miniscule trouble with other kids(Again, kids will be kids). 2 weeks this time, I'm suddenly ADHD instead.

So they just kept increasing my dosage of Ritalin (an amphetamine)..
I was sick all the time. I could not eat, I was sensitive to light, heat, always nauseous and "puky". I just thought that was the way life was. It kinda sucked. Except my summer and weekend breaks from my meds.

Until I was 13 I took that crap, I had enough, and refused to comply. Eventually my mom gave in, took me to another doctor, and made her feel like a real idiot for having put me through that.

Within a few months of going off the Ritalin, I got fat. My headaches went away, and food tasted good. I also quickly became quiet, and distant from everyone, and slowly sank into a depression. I guess 6 years of amphetamines, my brain chemistry was going through a real rough time (withdraws and chemical change). It lasted a few years.

Down the road, I was having issues sleeping, and had some social awkwardness issues. Somehow, I was diagnosed as being bi-polar. I developed severe social anxiety shortly after that, to the point I could not go to a grocery store without a panic attack, which turned into a weird social paranoia.

Longest story ever... but in the end, around 17 I decided to move out on my own. I quit taking the meds, seeing the doctors, got exercise, and slowly morphed into a valid social life... and it was like being on cloud nine.

There were a few years of drug addictions here and there (naturally, amphetamines as they were part of my "normal" brain chemistry for over 6 years)

I'm a fairly normal, successful guy these days. Its taken me a little bit of self-initiative and education, and a few years to get my gears all in order. I've owned firearms since I was a kid, is the point here.

I held a lot of resentments towards my mother for this, for many years. I've started to get over it, as shes apologized and cried about being in a vulnerable position and being manipulated into thinking she was doing what was best for me.

I get very upset when people are not educated on these topics, and teachers, or parents etc have a unique child, and want to drug them up and essentially ruin their lives.

Thankfully, this trend is not as rampant as it was when I was a child, as people like myself have seen the consequences, and things have evolved.

Rant over.

 

[jdh]

There is a segment of modern society who believe the simple desire to own firearms is indicative of mental illness. Therefore the desire to own them is a disqualifier to ownership.

 

[rellascout]

You are aware that there is no organic proof of mental illness, right? I'm certainly not denying its existence. I'm just saying its not quite what you expect.

Money is in treatment, not cure. I don't know a single psychiatrist that has ever cured anyone. For one thing, its still on the experimental front compared to physically tangible illness/disease. The second thing is....its a multi-billion dollar industry. Its not in any Psychiatrists best financial interest to "discharge cured" a patient.

Sorry but you need to step out of the dark ages of the 80s and early 90s and into the 21st century. There is organic proof that the brain chemistry of those suffering from mental illiness is different than those who report no mental illness issues. What happened to you on personal level in the 80s/90s does not translate directly to what happens today.

We might not know how to alter it properly, change or correct it because we do not fully understand what causes it but it does not mean we have not proven that it exists. We cannot cure cancer but we certainly know it exists. The same thing could be said of inherited heart disease.

The ignorance expressesed in your statement is one of the reasons mental health treatment in our society is so poor. We treat it as if its all in the persons head. That they could simply fix it if they had the will power. That type of approach and understanding is so outdated and insulting IMHO to those who suffer. Would you say the same things about a child with type 1 diabetes? There is no cure for that either manangement and lifelong treatment is the only current solution. Can a child with type 1 diabetes change their medical condition by an act of will? NO! Then why do we ask the same of those who suffer from a mental illiness. Mental illiness is a disease born out of a physical/chemical condition the science is there to support this even if you and Tom Cruise choose to ignore it.

 

[HorseSoldier]

I do not believe in a "2nd Amendment Exception". You don't forfeit your other rights when you are declared "mentally ill".

Not necessarily true. Seriously mental ill people are routinely taken into custody by police and transferred involuntarily to mental health treatment facilities -- which is to say, their rights have been terminated at a level comparable to someone arrested for a crime. In some cases, seriously mental ill people who cannot take care of themselves may either remain locked up or be returned to the community but with court assigned payees or other caretakers/administrators who control their finances and other aspects of their lives.

Now these aren't people who went and talked to a therapist because they feel a little run down and depressed, these are people with significant problems controlling their behavior and such. But, to pretend your only right that might be taken away when declared mentally ill is your access to firearms is simply not true.

And as other have noted, how is that defined? And who will define it?

It's not a hypothetical -- it's defined on a daily basis by law enforcement and the courts. If you present with erratic behavior that leads to the police being called and they determine you represent a risk to yourself or others, you can (and probably will be) taken into custody and transported to a facility for short term mental health evaluation and treatment -- whether you agree to that or not.

Subsequent to that, or at the initiation of concerned parties (such as relatives) your mental competence can be challenged in the courts and you can be adjudicated as so mentally ill you cannot take care of your own affairs or that you should be held for treatment at an inpatient facility.

At that point if you honestly answer the questions on your paperwork during firearms purchase you are not eligible. That's how it works, there is no hypothetical dimension to it. The problem people are seeing is that there is generally a reliance on honest self-reporting by buyers and seriously delusional people who have not been through the court process for mental health issues who are dangers to themselves or others with firearms. That is where there is the potential for a slippery slope on liberties and such.

 

[Cosmoline]

I think the standard needs to be narrowed or abolished. Otherwise we're really punishing people for PREcrimes. They're being stripped of liberty because they *MIGHT* do something to someone else. But so might anyone. Many mentally ill people--indeed the vast majority--are not violent to others at all.

Whether or not someone might kill himself should not be part of the standard. The state is not a parent or a representative of the Almighty. Unless suicide is an actual crime and the person is arrested for attempt, there is no basis in law to punish a person for being a threat to himself.

And let's not be idiots here--stripping second amendment rights *IS* punishment. Not treatment and not for "their own good." Leaving people alone should be the default, with exceptions only for actual criminal behavior. If someone goes nutty and quietly dies in his house, that's his business. Certainly has nothing to do with gun ownership. But unfortunately if such a person is adjudicated mentally ill it will ban him as if he were a high level felon.

 

[J-Bar]

There is a segment of modern society who believe the simple desire to own firearms is indicative of mental illness. Therefore the desire to own them is a disqualifier to ownership.

This is a very profound statement.

I suspect Senator Shumer and Sara Brady would call any of us gun nuts crazy. The problem is not crazy people owning guns, the problem is who is going to determine who is crazy.

Let us focus on those who commit criminal ACTS. If we focus on those who have criminal thoughts, everyone will be in prison.

 

[Toaster]

Sure, let's keep firearms far away from anyone with the slightest hint of mental instability. Tha would include persons with a touch of depression, a poor attitude about their place of employment, people who gripe about the weather, and of course all the folks who own Hi Point, Taurus, Bryco, or Ruger firearms. Cuz aperson has to be crazy to buy that crap right?
And while we're at it, no guns for anyone that owns a Ford. IMHO you're nuts for spending good money on a Ford.
Maybe we could go so far as to elect a committee of Chicagos finest politicians to review each and every gun owner in the USA and let them decide id gun ownwers are mentally ill enough to have their guns taken away.
Sounds like a plan....NOT!

 

[JustinJ]

"Quote:
Originally Posted by HorseSoldier
Um, unless you're a convicted felon. Or have a criminal history including misdemeanor domestic violence convictions. Or have been adjudicated as mentally defective in the past. Or have been dishonorably discharged from the US military. Etc etc etc.

Methinks you need to reread the 2nd amendment."

Me thinks you need to read the fifth amendment. Rights can be removed with due process.

 

[archigos]

There is a black and white answer.
If somebody is not safe enough to be trusted with a firearm, they are not safe enough to be in general society. This applies to both the mentally ill and criminals. There are many folks who are mentally ill who are perfectly safe with firearms, just like there are many criminals who have committed minor crimes and have produced no reason to think they should be disarmed.

 

[doc.lonestar]

There are people who are mentally ill and then there are those that are mentally ill

Certain types of depression or anxiety I am not so concerned about as much as people who are medicated in order to be able to function in society. It has been my experience that those on serious medication tend to not be med compliant or worse they tend to self medicate.

I had one client I worked with that was submitted to the county hospital on a psych hold. He was doing coke and drinking wild turkey to counter the medications he was taking. During intake I asked him the required questions and everything seemed calm. I turn to request some paperwork and he attacks the female nurse with me. It took myself, an orderly, and 2 police officers to get this guy off of her.

I for one would not want this guy living next to me with knives, let alone a shotgun or in line next to me at wally world with a ccw when he has an episode.

 

[oneounceload]

Also, many types of mental illness (even serious types) can be controlled with medication or therapy

Until they stop taking the meds, then bad ju-ju can happen

Here in FL, someone can be "Baker-acted" - that is, forcibly removed from their home and put in an institution for their own safety. Had an elderly gent down the street start to lose it a few months after his wife of 60+ years passed - he was walking around the house, inside and out, with a loaded pistol looking for the bad guys who weren't there while muttering nonsense to himself

Sorry, in that case, NO guns for him.

His family had him moved to assisted living

 

[Gordon_Freeman]

I think it's strange that this guy only has one post on this forum in 8 months and does not give his own opinion on this subject. What's up with that?
It could be an anti-gun person trolling for responses to make gun owners look bad. That's something to keep in mind when replying to this thread.

 

[Dreamcast270mhz]

It depends on the persons state of mind. If they have violent mood changes, are unable to live on their own, or unable to keep from harming others or themselves, then no.

If they happen to suffer from depression or another disorder that allows them to keep their reasoning and not harm others, then sure, let 'em have it.

 

[Kaeto]

As far as the bit about keeping low intelligence people from having guns. I personally have known some mensa members who are so amoral that they feel they should have the right to exterminate anyone who is below a certain level of intelligence. And to have those above that level but still lower than another level as their slaves.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

Bottom line, with all the socialization and government access to "medical" information, if you develope a need for mental couselling, etc, better do it as a "John Doe", under an alias, or somehow on the sly (paid for with cash), or the government will be denying your gun rights down the road.............

 

[JustinJ]

"I think it's strange that this guy only has one post on this forum in 8 months and does not give his own opinion on this subject. What's up with that?
It could be an anti-gun person trolling for responses to make gun owners look bad. That's something to keep in mind when replying to this thread. "

How about paranoid schizophrenics?

 

[rellascout]

How about paranoid schizophrenics?

This is a good topic. I am not sure why so many people are commenting negatively about the OP. It really does not matter who started the discussion.

It is interesting to hear what people think. It is a rubber meets the road type of question because in the recent past we have had mentally unstable people get guns and do harm.

Where do you drawn the line.