Mental Health and Firearms Ownership, what do you think?

[LibShooter]

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.

I think this is an interesting topic... whoever started it.

And if stating our real opinions about a topic makes gun owners look bad... we better shut down the whole forum.

 

[Dnaltrop]

a one-time good friend with no real criminal record was off his meds years ago.

He was sleeping on a friends couches at the time, being unable to keep his own household.

He had an episode, and freaked out inside the house, locking the homeowner outside, retrieved the homeowner's pistol, and hid in a corner to defend himself from his demons. It did not end well... the police were not summoned, but he was out on his rear that night.

He's been a LOT better, but still is subject to occasional episodes. I miss time with him but i'm not willing to bring myself around, much less my children.

The line between safe owner and uncontrollable danger is very thin.

 

[Dr.Rob]

I've had good reason to look into this. Rules vary state by state, but if you have been declared 'mentally defective' by a judge in Colorado it can get you a refusal on a new firearm purchase but it does NOT limit your ability to own firearms.

This is rulings like this can be made for the wrong reasons. In Colorado it's possible to get such a ruling appealed, in other states it is practically impossible.

This is not a black or white issue in my view. Rather it is a case by case issue. If you think a loved one is a danger to temselves or others, by all means lock up their guns. But be careful you don't go removing them from the premises without written permission by a person with power of attorney or from the ill person themselves, or you could be charged with a crime down the road.

 

[WardenWolf]

I have mild Asperger's Syndrome. Does that make me unqualified to purchase and own firearms? No. I'm extremely disciplined and knowledgeable about the safe handling and inner workings of the firearms I own, likely even more so than your average gun owner. And I know how to use the gun I carry very well. Yet Asperger's and autism in general are listed on the DSM-IV. If some people had their way, I would not be able to own firearms. Yet I do, and my condition likely makes me even safer for doing so simply because it makes me more knowledgeable and disciplined.

 

[JustinJ]

The original question is way too vague for a yes or no answer but i'll throw this one in there.

What about soldiers returning home who are diagnosed with PSD?

Another thing for consideration is that homes with firearms have much higher rates of suicides.

 

[rellascout]

I have mild Asperger's Syndrome. Does that make me unqualified to purchase and own firearms? No. I'm extremely disciplined and knowledgeable about the safe handling and inner workings of the firearms I own, likely even more so than your average gun owner. And I know how to use the gun I carry very well. Yet Asperger's and autism in general are listed on the DSM-IV. If some people had their way, I would not be able to own firearms. Yet I do, and my condition likely makes me even safer for doing so simply because it makes me more knowledgeable and disciplined.

All poodles are dogs not all dogs are poodles. You cannot go from the specific to the general and believe that it is a universal. Your condition might help you be a better firearms owner but anothe Aspergers suffer might be made worse because of his or her inablity to relate or empathize with others.

This is not a black or white issue in my view. Rather it is a case by case issue.

Winner Winner Chicken Dinner!

 

[JustinJ]

"This is not a black or white issue in my view. Rather it is a case by case issue. "

Case by case for each individual is next to impossible to administer fairly.

 

[CapnMac]

Really, we could probably skip quite a lot of the banter and rhetoric over this issue, and the concurrent one of post-punishment convicts by just making a simple change in phrasing.

Really, all we need do is this: No person in custody shall have free access to arms during such period of custody, or as specifically determined by the authority in custodial charge.

Anything else is gilding a gold bar. Crime is illegal; really quite hard to make it "more" illegal by simply piling up more laws. Or more rules. Or more regulations. The sad reality is that, probably 80% of our laws, regulations, rules and ordinances are useless, or unenforceable, or contradictory--but, laws are the only tool our regulators have. When all you own is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

 

[oneounceload]

This is not a black or white issue in my view. Rather it is a case by case issue.

except the federal gov't does not know how to do that - their response is one size fits all, which means that one size fits none

 

[GWARGHOUL]

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.

Please, sir, explain your qualifications, and I will explain mine.

Because you are wrong.
There is no physical organic proof of mental illness. One would have to be able dissect a live working brain, and chemically analyze it in real time.
There hasn't been leaps and bounds made in psychiatry since what you call "the dark ages"(80's/90's). The real dark ages were the days when they did physical partial lobotomies.

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.

You're half way there. Cancer exists in physical form. Its becomes an organic growth, not a theoretical electro-chemical malfunction. Mental illness does not manifest itself in a physically observable form. The only thing observable is behavior, and some cutting edge brain wave and imaging (try to get your psychiatrist to do that!) I clearly said that I am not denying its existence. I'm all to familiar with it on a academic, professional and personal level.

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.

Woah, woah you're taking my story out of context.
I'm simply stating some facts about psychiatry, and how I was mistreated by the industry, and demonstrating that at one time or another, we could all be diagnosed with some form of mental illness if we fall victim to having a few bad days and end up seeing a doctor. In think I mentioned my grandma, uncle, dad etc.... those people need treatment, and they get it. Except from grandma, she passed away a few years ago.

So as a "sufferer" I don't appreciate being called ignorant, when I do in fact never speak without knowing the topic.

But you would be surprised how powerful the mind is, on a side note.

I certainly did not mean for this to turn into anyone calling anyone ignorant. I stated my cause, and if you read my story the way it was intended, you would have not said that.

 

[rellascout]

So as a "sufferer" I don't appreciate being called ignorant, when I do in fact never speak without knowing the topic.

But you would be surprised how powerful the mind is, on a side note.

I certainly did not mean for this to turn into anyone calling anyone ignorant. I stated my cause, and if you read my story the way it was intended, you would have not said that

Check my statement... I did not cal you ignorant. I did say your statement expressed ignorance there is a difference. One can express ignorance and not be ignorant. I do it all the time. LOL You are projecting.

To your points MRIs are able to show brain activity. Your avg couch jockey is not going to do that but there had been enough research at the University level to establish and prove my point.

You are not stating fact about psychiatry you are stating your opinion which is based on your personal experience which was less than stellar. You then take this subjective personal experience and apply it to every psychiatrist.

ALL POODLES ARE DOGS NOT ALL DOGS ARE POODLES!

I am not trying to attack you. I am simply disagreeing with your take on psychiatry and the verifiability of the metal illness. I am sorry if it came across the wrong way.

 

[Cosmoline]

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

The solution is right in front of you. That attack is most assuredly a FELONY LEVEL assault. Bring in the police, have the man arrested, and the job is done. No more gun rights.

If you're not prepared to do that, then there's really no room to complain.

We ought to be judged by our ACTIONS not our THOUGHTS. And only a criminal conviction should remove any core rights.

As far as "danger to himself" either you own your life or the state does, there is no middle ground. The courts have approved stripping people of liberty and freedom on the grounds that these people might kill themselves, but the legal framework for these decisions is deeply specious. In many states the rule is essentially that the court can do it because the court can do it. No crime has been committed or attempted, but you're still held in custody. And if you don't cooperate you can be adjudicated mentally ill. There go your rights! Waive goodbye.

It's a good reason to stay well clear of any mental health treatment.

 

[Baba Louie]

Where IS BryanDavis? Heckuva 1st post... then poof, gone.

If a Judge has reason to "adjudicate" an individual as "mental" in a court of law, then, no guns for said individual.

If a politician or bureaucrat makes that distinction of who is or who is not "mental", then I wither and dither and say who are they to judge?

A team of Doctors, upon careful analysis of an individual, might make a recommendation pro or con and I'd listen to them (if I were in a position to matter) and weigh the risk to society or the individual in question. A gut call.

I know a couple of people whom I consider "mental" who own firearms. One in particular should not have them. She has threatened, in the past, to utilize them should certain familial obligations unfold in a manner not to her liking. I offered to her husband, to remove the firing pins... he declined. She still has kitchen knives and other assorted potential tools of mayhem, as do we all, crazed or not. Her husand (my friend) walks on eggshells.

Sad that.

 

[Rshooter]

When a mentally ill person commits a crime they they should be denied their right to own a firearm. Does a person having any diagnosis present a danger? Think about all of us veterans, are we a danger because of our past experiences and the fact that the V.A. treats us?

Check the Veterans Disarmament Act of 2008.

 

[GWARGHOUL]

Check my statement... I did not cal you ignorant. I did say your statement expressed ignorance there is a difference. One can express ignorance and not be ignorant. I do it all the time. LOL You are projecting.

My mistake and my apologies. Its a bit of a sensitive topic, ya know?

To your points MRIs are able to show brain activity. Your avg couch jockey is not going to do that but there had been enough research at the University level to establish and prove my point.

MRI's do no prove much other than "activity", and structural anomalies in the brain. they do not decipher chemicals, nor synapses, receptors etc. Again, that all good research, but it is not empirical, and still does not satisfy the scientific requirements of physical evidence. This is why Psychiatry resorts to Observable behavior. Unfortunately, many times the behaviors are not in their most natural settings (locked in a psych ward etc).

Psychiatric diagnosis is based on behavior, much of the same way many of the newer schools of practice in Psychology. NOT on the "proof" of anything chemical in the brain.

You are not stating fact about psychiatry you are stating your opinion which is based on your personal experience which was less than stellar. You then take this subjective personal experience and apply it to every psychiatrist.

Actually, I am stating several facts, as well as a few person opinions, and FYI I think my uncle and grandmother are/were well manged. If you want me to go get the books, and pull up the scholarly journals and research findings, from the many papers I've wrote... I will... and I'll even lay it out MLA style.

As for applying it to every Psychiatrist.. you're absolutely correct that I have a bias there.
Sometimes that may seem very apparent.
However, one thing can be said based on qualified scholarly research is that I'm unaware of anybody being aware of a psychiatrist ever curing anyone. I'll re-state that there is no physical, organic proof of 98% of mental illnesses that are recognized by DSM, WHO etc.

Its all based on observable behavior, and case studies, and theory based on experimental research.

I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I'm just simply stating some facts about its somewhat subjective nature.

I am not trying to attack you. I am simply disagreeing with your take on psychiatry and the verifiability of the metal illness. I am sorry if it came across the wrong way.
__________________

Hey, its cool. I'm not the most eloquent at times when it comes to subjects where I have a bit of personal and emotional involvement in. I apologize for taking you the wrong way, and if I came of harsh or anything.

I also appreciate a good intelligent conversation like this.

 

[Norrick]

Where do you draw the line?

Sanity?

Depression?

Too difficult in my opinion, although the short answer is, mentally ill people should not be allowed to have or use them.

 

[JohnBT]

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

Please don't. The vast majority of doctors have NO psychological or psychiatric training.

I have worked with individuals with mental illness for 37 years. I will keep this very short. The problem is that when most people think about mental illness they picture a person ranting, raving, roaming the streets and generally being nuts.

Yes, there are quite a few people with those problems, even though the problems do come and go at times (crazy people have ups and downs like everybody else.). Some high percentage of the total number of people diagnosed with mental illness - 95% or 99% or something - don't fit the crazy as a bedbug label and act like the Unibomber or John Hinckley.

There are so many mental illness diagnoses in the manual. We're talking ADD, depression, sexual addiction and such listed in the DSM-IV. Google it.

 

[Dr_B]

I am a psychologist, so I'll throw my 2 cents in here. Not all mentally ill people are violent. And not all mentally ill people have serious impairments of judgement. However, for those who have had contact with law enforcement due to violent behavior (i.e., a danger to themselves or others), I am in favor of restricted firearms ownership. I am also uncomfortable with firearms in the hands of those who have NOT had contact with law enforcement but do have impairments of judgement due to their illness.

In my opinion, the bigger issue isn't firearms. The big problem is that we don't do enough for individuals out there who need help.

 

[NM Mountainman]

Good post Dr. B

"However, for those who have had contact with law enforcement due to violent behavior (i.e., a danger to themselves or others), I am in favor of restricted firearms ownership."

Should "having contact with law enforcement" (like being arrested or warned by the police) be sufficient cause to restrict their rights, or should we just restrict those who have been convicted of a crime? We already have a system in place for restricting ownership of those who have been convicted of a crime.

"The big problem is that we don't do enough for individuals out there who need help." Thanks for pointing this out. This is what should be getting most of the emphasis and discussion. This the problem which should motivate new legislation and the implementation of programs.

When a shooting (particularly with multiple victims) makes national news, the reporting, editorials, and speeches too often focus a lot more on restricting gun ownership than on helping people with serious long term psychological disorders.

 

[9MMare]

The 2nd amendment to our constitution has no excepts in it.

Neither does the 1st Amendment, but we do make laws curtailing those rights under some circumstances (generally public safety). Some that I agree with and some that I dont.

I definitely think that mentally ill people should not own or carry firearms. Where the line is drawn for that? I do not have that wisdom or medical knowlege.

And in general, I am one of those that feels there should be few restrictions on carrying, including for convicted felons after a period of time. Including not being based on any training requirements.

 

[9MMare]

"The problem is that when most people think about mental illness they picture a person ranting, raving, roaming the streets and generally being nuts.

I dont think this is true at all, esp not here on the board nor as expressed in this thread. It is all those other things: depression, addiction, bi-polar, ADD *or under the influence of drugs prescribed for such* that are much more at issue, much more into gray areas.

To me, that is where the real potential for danger is. Because it is less expected, less obvious. We all reach limits under stress....how much more does it affect those already burdened with such illnesses? Unfortunately there's no calculator for that.

I stick with my signature for most questions like this....rather than make more laws, I prefer to just try to be more responsible and observant for myself. It's no guarantee but I value freedom more.

 

[DammitBoy]

The problem is that when most people think about mental illness they picture a person ranting, raving, roaming the streets and generally being nuts.

Yes, there are quite a few people with those problems....

Those are the ones who need to be restricted from owning firearms.

 

[JohnBT]

"The big problem is that we don't do enough for individuals out there who need help."

Okay, there isn't enough money for services. Anywhere.

Having said that, I think the biggest problem is that a majority of people don't want help, at least not the kind that's available. Sure, they will take a job lead or whatever immediate relief seems to be useful to them, but they don't want the kind of help where somebody is going to work to change them and get all up in their business and "help them" and keep good notes on them and go "tsk-tsk" when things don't go right.

Heck, I don't like nosey people and free advice.

And this is America after all, the land of the free.

 

[Mike1234567]

Depends on "what" mental illness.

 

[JohnBT]

"Psychiatric diagnosis is based on behavior"

Nope. A lot of it is simply based on talk. You said you felt something, or didn't. Your mother or wife said you've been acting differently.

If you look at the requirements listed in the DSM-IV, there's a lot of "said this and said that" or "reported by"

I believe the actual language used is "", heck, I'll quote it...

"as indicated by either subjective account or observation made by others"

The others don't have to be professionals.

So if your mother tells the doctor you've been acting depressed or staying in your room more than you used to, well, the doctor has some of the necessary evidence. But no behavior.