Mike1234567
member
That depends on how bad the PTSD is and how it manifests itself. PTSD has many flavors and levels of severity.
Mental Health and Firearms Ownership, what do you think?
- Thread starter BryanDavis
- Start date
- Status
Mike1234567
member
I don't know how many folks here believe in the whole ADD/ADHD thing but some believe it's a very mild form of autism. You ask me? I think mild autism is very common in the masses and can usually be overcome. Same with many mild forms of bipolar disorder. A touch of abnormalcy is completely normal, IMO. Severe forms are not. Who decides how much is too much? Not me. And, no, I'm not diagnosed with any form of mental disability.
1stmarine
Member
Not really, I am very active in 1st and 2nd amendment activities and movements. or any rights for that matter. What I mean active is not just words but actions.
HEre we are talking about keeping folks safe, that's all.
HEre we are talking about keeping folks safe, that's all.
A lot of people are talking about keeping people safe just like you are, they are called anti-gun activists. My question to you is if restrictive gun laws keep people safe (which they categorically do not), why aren't you in favor of outright bans? How do you pick and choose which groups of people aren't allowed to defend themselves?
1stmarine
Member
Let me explain something to you ok? As a veteran I help many soldiers in my area that come back from Iraq and Afganistan. Many with lots of issues due to the screw up situation that we have with so many tours too close together and too much medication. I just helped a friend to get this gun permit that he was not going to get initially and some others we cannot really help due to some bad decisions they made. I have talked to the senator several times, to the lawyers and go to the court with them and with other veterans and good americans that want to help. So when you talk about anti-gun activists you will not find many around here.
These issues are very serious and very real.
These issues are very serious and very real.
jdh
Member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2008
- Messages
- 1,375
Tim the student said:
One of our customers at the gun shop was denied. He submitted a VAF letter. The response stated report of PTSD filed by DVA. Yes, I know it is anecdotal. No I do not have a copy of the letter and no I will not name the customer. He has retained counsel to attempt to resolve the matter.
Take the vteran angle out of it. You have a near drowning. You have bad dreams about it. You get night sweats and terrible insomnia. You go see a shrink. He diagnoses PTSD.
Wheter it's right or wrong there are consequences to this diagnosis that might have NOTHING to do with what the patient is being treated for, and PTSD can arguably be 'cured' or at least 'managed.'
Still want to impinge his rights?
I'm not talking about someone having a psychotic break, rather a run of the mill mental health issue, which what I think this thread was about.
Wheter it's right or wrong there are consequences to this diagnosis that might have NOTHING to do with what the patient is being treated for, and PTSD can arguably be 'cured' or at least 'managed.'
Still want to impinge his rights?
I'm not talking about someone having a psychotic break, rather a run of the mill mental health issue, which what I think this thread was about.
Last edited:
HorseSoldier
Member
There are people who have PTSD of such severity that they probably shouldn't be given access to weapons. There are people who have PTSD who don't have any trouble moderating their behavior responsibly even if they experience severe symptoms.
This is, again, a case where a one size fits all approach isn't applicable.
This is, again, a case where a one size fits all approach isn't applicable.
1stmarine
Member
Not for PTSD of course! You're preaching to the choir. That is my point. I have helped many but some cannot be helped. they made some pretty bad decisions and the records are kept. I mean bad, very bad things.
Of course PTSD can be cured, it is being cured.
In the average situation I actually think that a firearm is something you do not take away from a veteran after they come back, many it helps them sleep better, specially after being deployed for long and it helps them adjust but the system is screwed up and it doesn't see it this way.
Most of the legal fights is because of the abuse of medication and this is the initiative of the army these days. Then you put this in your pistol application and you are screwed so veterans get very offended that them being veterans is something that is creating problems when time to get a permit, something that is understandable and we help them fight for.
I might have missed some initial posts, I though we were talking bout folks with schizophrenia and other more serious hard to treat issues.
No PTSD and other modern labels. I apologize for the confusion.
Of course PTSD can be cured, it is being cured.
In the average situation I actually think that a firearm is something you do not take away from a veteran after they come back, many it helps them sleep better, specially after being deployed for long and it helps them adjust but the system is screwed up and it doesn't see it this way.
Most of the legal fights is because of the abuse of medication and this is the initiative of the army these days. Then you put this in your pistol application and you are screwed so veterans get very offended that them being veterans is something that is creating problems when time to get a permit, something that is understandable and we help them fight for.
I might have missed some initial posts, I though we were talking bout folks with schizophrenia and other more serious hard to treat issues.
No PTSD and other modern labels. I apologize for the confusion.
Tim the student
Member
(I'm assuming you are referring to the Department of Veterans Affairs, right?)
Moving on with that assumption, that may well be in that case - but I assure you, it does not do it to all vets with PTSD. Ask me how I know. I bet there are a hundred vets on THR that have been diagnosed with PTSD that still maintain their 2A rights.
1stmarine
Member
no PTSD but folks that actually have and addiction and have had some problems ...some with the law.
Also keep in mind that is not the same in all the states. In NY the situation is really bad.
Also keep in mind that is not the same in all the states. In NY the situation is really bad.
I'll pose the same question again as it hasn't been answered: If restrictive gun laws keep people safe (which they categorically do not), why aren't you in favor of outright bans? How do you pick and choose which groups of people aren't allowed to defend themselves?
1stmarine
Member
I will try to answer your questions from my perspective:
Are you more worry about the 2nd amendment than any other? How do we explain to a mentally ill person that he cannot work in a highly explosive environment and that is not job discrimination? Is it?
I don't thin that "pick and choose" are the right words as this in deed is a very complicated task. Possibly impossible but we could always do better.
By giving our opinions here we all are exercising our most fundamental rights, one that should allow us to find better options but only if we listen to each other, openly.
Are you more worry about the 2nd amendment than any other? How do we explain to a mentally ill person that he cannot work in a highly explosive environment and that is not job discrimination? Is it?
I don't thin that "pick and choose" are the right words as this in deed is a very complicated task. Possibly impossible but we could always do better.
By giving our opinions here we all are exercising our most fundamental rights, one that should allow us to find better options but only if we listen to each other, openly.
1stmarine said:
You realize, there are those who'd argue that by banning all guns, they'd really just be keeping folks safe... that's all.
After all, isn't safety what it's all about? Guns are dangerous if improperly used so the obvious solution is to make it so they just aren't used at all. No gun use at all means no improper use, right?
Imagine for a moment that you're the target of those who are seeking to restrict your rights for some vague, mostly imagined reason. Then stop and realize that it's not too far from the truth.
1stmarine
Member
Imagine you are working in a chemical plant and you coworker managing some containers with very dangerous chemicals is mentally unstable making everyone feel very unsafe.
how is he going to feel if he is being targeted for some time off?
Is that discrimination?
That might answer your question.
Any decisions whether is that coworker or somebody that is being in being treated in a mental hospital demanding a purchase on a revolver should be looked at the same way or
different? and if so why?
I hope you do not get the idea I am into any anti-gun anything. I just want others to think about all situations life has. All very complex in deed.
Of course there are people there trying to shut down any firearms right but this discussion is not about this, I think.
how is he going to feel if he is being targeted for some time off?
Is that discrimination?
That might answer your question.
Any decisions whether is that coworker or somebody that is being in being treated in a mental hospital demanding a purchase on a revolver should be looked at the same way or
different? and if so why?
I hope you do not get the idea I am into any anti-gun anything. I just want others to think about all situations life has. All very complex in deed.
Of course there are people there trying to shut down any firearms right but this discussion is not about this, I think.
They are absolutely not the same whatsoever, working in a chemical factory is not a basic human right, but self defense is.
I am also not arguing that there aren't certain people who would use guns dangerously, obviously there are. I just object to laws that restrict only harmless people, and do nothing to keep anybody safer (all gun laws)
I also don't believe that anyone should be treated or otherwise kept in a mental hospital against there will, for any reason. Someone who does not want medical treatment shouldn't have it forced upon them.
I am also not arguing that there aren't certain people who would use guns dangerously, obviously there are. I just object to laws that restrict only harmless people, and do nothing to keep anybody safer (all gun laws)
I also don't believe that anyone should be treated or otherwise kept in a mental hospital against there will, for any reason. Someone who does not want medical treatment shouldn't have it forced upon them.
Last edited:
Dr rob said:
PTSD is a good example to highlight.
Arguably PTSD could be a natural response to an event that was beyond the control of the individual and so shocks the person into a more hyper vigilant state regarding similar stimuli.
We may view it as abnormal because it impairs what we feel is what a normal person should feel and do, but arguably it is a self preservation response.
If someone nearly drowned as in your example, the traumatization of the experience helps to insure they would not put themselves in a similar situation willingly, and if faced with one would be anxious and hyper vigilant.
They may avoid water, not like swimming, or swimming in the type of situation that lead to the traumatic experience.
Arguably that could be a good thing, keeping them from what their brain has subconsciously learned is a good way to end up dead, and so insuring their survival.
Yet society would see it as an illness, preventing them from doing certain things. And it very well could be interfering with things they need to do, maybe their job requires them to be around or in water, or be comfortable swimming. But from a more primitive perspective, if they avoided that activity that nearly caused them to die, they would be far less likely to die from that in the future. So it could be a natural self preservation technique of the brain at a subconscious level.
Likewise the soldier put into a situation where they have minimal options under the ROE and orders and as a result of their limited options experiences near death experiences or death of those around them from IEDs or ambush, is psychologically forced to realize their vulnerability in that situation. A vulnerability which may be beyond management, which is certain to result in hyper vigilance and stress when forced into similar situations.
Past experience telling their brain they are in a heightened state of vulnerability causing a fight or flight response while those without that feeling will perform without that additional stress.
The military will see that as a disability, making them less able to put themselves into required but vulnerable positions without 'excessive stress', but in reality it is their mind telling them to stop doing what is going to get them killed. 'Coping' and putting themselves in the same situation may be more likely to get them killed from the same risk, but their brain learned it should avoid that risk and developed PTSD.
PTSD can be a way of the brain telling the body to avoid that which experience has taught it is a likely way to end up dead or seriously injured. "Flashbacks" for example a way of reminding them in a vivid way a lesson which will be less likely forgotten.
Arguably from an evolutionary standpoint, those with such a reaction would probably be more likely to cease the activity and so be less likely to die from it in the future. While those without that reaction are more likely to once again feel comfortable in the same situations or doing the same activity and subject to the same risk.
Or likewise it may cement a new learned psychological self preservation response when faced with what is perceived as similar, but may not translate into a response that is appropriate outside of the environment is was learned in like in normal society as a civilian.
You may be able to tell a robot to keep doing the same things that get it damaged over and over, but the human mind may have a reaction to that and try to adapt.
Arguably those without PTSD responses would be the abnormal ones. The guy told to man a checkpoint where they have nearly died or seen others die and be maimed from car bombs they had no chance of foreseeing may realize they are subject to unmanageable risk of death performing that activity. Their brain is telling them not to do it anymore, and stressing them out, subconsciously putting them into a fight or flight response from the perceived danger. The military would consider this a defective soldier if they become informed of it.
While the brain of the person yet to have that experience is more comfortable and still feels it can manage the risks, and so it not 'excessively' stressed and will more comfortable stand there stopping vehicles until it is blown up.
While the brain of one that has had the experience before yet still feels comfortable and able to manage in the situation experience has taught it carries high and unmanageable risk (lacking PTSD) is probably the defective one, at an evolutionary disadvantage of survival. Yet is what the military would consider an ideal soldier.
A problem of course arises when say the stimuli proceeding the traumatizing event is one that is similar to something in normal society. For example if they learned being in large crowds was a precursor to ambushes that resulted in being shot at or suicide bombs, their brain may similarly subconsciously feel such normal gatherings of people in regular society hold a similar risk, and so illicit a hyper vigilant and fight or flight response outside of a warzone. Impairing 'normal' function. But it would still be their brain following a learned response to keep the person from death or serious injury.
This would be a 'mental illness' requiring treatment to unlearn that response.
But arguably it is still an advantageous evolutionary response, because it subconsciously aims to keep the person from situations similar to those which are learned to carry a high risk. If they were still in the environment where that learned response was advantageous it may keep them around longer. So it would only be their change of environment that turns an advantageous response into an 'illness'.
My point is how many disorders are really natural adaptions which under some situations could be advantageous, yet are termed mental disorders because in our modern society where most people live a rather constant safe routine they are expected to perform each day they impair rather than enhance the individual?
PTSD is a good example to highlight.
Arguably PTSD could be a natural response to an event that was beyond the control of the individual and so shocks the person into a more hyper vigilant state regarding similar stimuli.
We may view it as abnormal because it impairs what we feel is what a normal person should feel and do, but arguably it is a self preservation response.
If someone nearly drowned as in your example, the traumatization of the experience helps to insure they would not put themselves in a similar situation willingly, and if faced with one would be anxious and hyper vigilant.
They may avoid water, not like swimming, or swimming in the type of situation that lead to the traumatic experience.
Arguably that could be a good thing, keeping them from what their brain has subconsciously learned is a good way to end up dead, and so insuring their survival.
Yet society would see it as an illness, preventing them from doing certain things. And it very well could be interfering with things they need to do, maybe their job requires them to be around or in water, or be comfortable swimming. But from a more primitive perspective, if they avoided that activity that nearly caused them to die, they would be far less likely to die from that in the future. So it could be a natural self preservation technique of the brain at a subconscious level.
Likewise the soldier put into a situation where they have minimal options under the ROE and orders and as a result of their limited options experiences near death experiences or death of those around them from IEDs or ambush, is psychologically forced to realize their vulnerability in that situation. A vulnerability which may be beyond management, which is certain to result in hyper vigilance and stress when forced into similar situations.
Past experience telling their brain they are in a heightened state of vulnerability causing a fight or flight response while those without that feeling will perform without that additional stress.
The military will see that as a disability, making them less able to put themselves into required but vulnerable positions without 'excessive stress', but in reality it is their mind telling them to stop doing what is going to get them killed. 'Coping' and putting themselves in the same situation may be more likely to get them killed from the same risk, but their brain learned it should avoid that risk and developed PTSD.
PTSD can be a way of the brain telling the body to avoid that which experience has taught it is a likely way to end up dead or seriously injured. "Flashbacks" for example a way of reminding them in a vivid way a lesson which will be less likely forgotten.
Arguably from an evolutionary standpoint, those with such a reaction would probably be more likely to cease the activity and so be less likely to die from it in the future. While those without that reaction are more likely to once again feel comfortable in the same situations or doing the same activity and subject to the same risk.
Or likewise it may cement a new learned psychological self preservation response when faced with what is perceived as similar, but may not translate into a response that is appropriate outside of the environment is was learned in like in normal society as a civilian.
You may be able to tell a robot to keep doing the same things that get it damaged over and over, but the human mind may have a reaction to that and try to adapt.
Arguably those without PTSD responses would be the abnormal ones. The guy told to man a checkpoint where they have nearly died or seen others die and be maimed from car bombs they had no chance of foreseeing may realize they are subject to unmanageable risk of death performing that activity. Their brain is telling them not to do it anymore, and stressing them out, subconsciously putting them into a fight or flight response from the perceived danger. The military would consider this a defective soldier if they become informed of it.
While the brain of the person yet to have that experience is more comfortable and still feels it can manage the risks, and so it not 'excessively' stressed and will more comfortable stand there stopping vehicles until it is blown up.
While the brain of one that has had the experience before yet still feels comfortable and able to manage in the situation experience has taught it carries high and unmanageable risk (lacking PTSD) is probably the defective one, at an evolutionary disadvantage of survival. Yet is what the military would consider an ideal soldier.
A problem of course arises when say the stimuli proceeding the traumatizing event is one that is similar to something in normal society. For example if they learned being in large crowds was a precursor to ambushes that resulted in being shot at or suicide bombs, their brain may similarly subconsciously feel such normal gatherings of people in regular society hold a similar risk, and so illicit a hyper vigilant and fight or flight response outside of a warzone. Impairing 'normal' function. But it would still be their brain following a learned response to keep the person from death or serious injury.
This would be a 'mental illness' requiring treatment to unlearn that response.
But arguably it is still an advantageous evolutionary response, because it subconsciously aims to keep the person from situations similar to those which are learned to carry a high risk. If they were still in the environment where that learned response was advantageous it may keep them around longer. So it would only be their change of environment that turns an advantageous response into an 'illness'.
My point is how many disorders are really natural adaptions which under some situations could be advantageous, yet are termed mental disorders because in our modern society where most people live a rather constant safe routine they are expected to perform each day they impair rather than enhance the individual?
Mike1234567 said:
ADD/ADHD could be another good example.
I have known kids of all types declared to have it. It is a typical diagnosis of a kid having trouble in school.
Some extraordinarily intelligent, and some of below average intelligence, with everything in between. One may get bored with the work, and another have trouble doing it, and so both focus on other things, yet both are seen as lacking attention span, or having a 'attention deficit' disorder. Even though the underlying reasons could be entirely different.
While some kids may just find focusing on uninteresting stuff is more difficult or even choose not to. Yet the same kid may be able to focus on fun or things they find interesting quite intently. So do they really have an 'attention' problem? Is it really natural for kids to sit still most of their lives getting minimal exercise, doing things they find uninteresting, doing what their brains may feel is pointless (even though it may be important education for their future), and be unaffected? Time passes even more slowly for children than adults, so an hour of boredom may be like hours to an adult.
Irregardless if you take someone that is finding trouble doing menial or uninteresting repetitive tasks and give them amphetamines or substances similar to (and including) methamphetamine they will suddenly perform those tasks with much more fervor.
This is the typical treatment.
So treating it like an illness allows you to bring more resources, and give medication that is like what the police are fighting to remove from the streets, to children. Almost anyone in society given meth would perform their job better, at least in the short term. Even if it does cause all sorts of other problems long term, and can actually make functioning worse. In the short term there would be certain improvement, but it would be considered a poor trade-off and undesirable course of action.
Yet for virtually any child having trouble in school this is normal, and it is normal because any child having trouble in school without another identifiable problem can be diagnosed with a mental illness turning it into a medical condition requiring treatment. That treatment is certain to show improvement when it involves giving them such a substance, at least in the short term, 'proving' the treatment's validity.
You give them what is essentially meth, they are doing better at least at repetitive mundane tasks a child is given. Who cares if it kills their appetite, they sleep poorly, and the other typical things people taking such drugs have problems with (including causing psychosis, so you can cause mental illness by treating arguably non-existent mental illness, wonderful.) Who cares that it is in a child with a growing developing body that needs all the nutrition and sleep they can get in their brief window of permanent development.
They can do mundane tasks they don't like with vigor now! Progress!
What an ironic twist of hypocrisy.
Is this really a field you want to hand the ability to take or allow rights on a whim, for no criminal conduct?
ADD/ADHD could be another good example.
I have known kids of all types declared to have it. It is a typical diagnosis of a kid having trouble in school.
Some extraordinarily intelligent, and some of below average intelligence, with everything in between. One may get bored with the work, and another have trouble doing it, and so both focus on other things, yet both are seen as lacking attention span, or having a 'attention deficit' disorder. Even though the underlying reasons could be entirely different.
While some kids may just find focusing on uninteresting stuff is more difficult or even choose not to. Yet the same kid may be able to focus on fun or things they find interesting quite intently. So do they really have an 'attention' problem? Is it really natural for kids to sit still most of their lives getting minimal exercise, doing things they find uninteresting, doing what their brains may feel is pointless (even though it may be important education for their future), and be unaffected? Time passes even more slowly for children than adults, so an hour of boredom may be like hours to an adult.
Irregardless if you take someone that is finding trouble doing menial or uninteresting repetitive tasks and give them amphetamines or substances similar to (and including) methamphetamine they will suddenly perform those tasks with much more fervor.
This is the typical treatment.
So treating it like an illness allows you to bring more resources, and give medication that is like what the police are fighting to remove from the streets, to children. Almost anyone in society given meth would perform their job better, at least in the short term. Even if it does cause all sorts of other problems long term, and can actually make functioning worse. In the short term there would be certain improvement, but it would be considered a poor trade-off and undesirable course of action.
Yet for virtually any child having trouble in school this is normal, and it is normal because any child having trouble in school without another identifiable problem can be diagnosed with a mental illness turning it into a medical condition requiring treatment. That treatment is certain to show improvement when it involves giving them such a substance, at least in the short term, 'proving' the treatment's validity.
You give them what is essentially meth, they are doing better at least at repetitive mundane tasks a child is given. Who cares if it kills their appetite, they sleep poorly, and the other typical things people taking such drugs have problems with (including causing psychosis, so you can cause mental illness by treating arguably non-existent mental illness, wonderful.) Who cares that it is in a child with a growing developing body that needs all the nutrition and sleep they can get in their brief window of permanent development.
They can do mundane tasks they don't like with vigor now! Progress!
What an ironic twist of hypocrisy.
Is this really a field you want to hand the ability to take or allow rights on a whim, for no criminal conduct?
Last edited:
archigos
Member
+1Danb1215 said:
Here's a list of some mental disorders as defined by the DSM and ICD:
*Alzheimer's
*Anorexia
*Asperger's
*ADHD
*Bereavement
*Bibliomania
*Binge eating disorder
*Bulimia
*Exhibitionism
*Gender identity disorder
*Kleptomania
*Learning disorders
*Obsessive-compulsive disorder
*Perfectionism
*Sleepwalking
To you folks who are saying things like "Very true. Mentally Ill persons need a lot more from society such as love, compassion, understanding,etc. They dont need firearms," or "Fiearms and mentally unstable folks do not mix," do you really think that people who sleepwalk or are perfectionists shouldn't have firearms? Why do you think that they don't deserve the human right of self defense?
I'd be willing to bet that at least 95% of those on this forum could be diagnosed with a "mental illness" if a "psychiatrist" had motivation to diagnose you as such. What I just named is an extremely small excerpt from the list. Still support blanket revocation of human rights based on "mental illness"?
jdh
Member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2008
- Messages
- 1,375
Perhaps I should have said some in the VA. This could have been a single VA shrink with an agenda. Or a clerk who took it upon him/her self to file the report. Or, or, or. But I'm willing to bet if it has happened to one vet it has happened to more.
For the record, the quality of care, the administrative procedures, and the sanitation varies wildly from one VA location to the next.
For the record, the quality of care, the administrative procedures, and the sanitation varies wildly from one VA location to the next.
Tim the student
Member
Yeah, we don't know. It could have been many things. And yes, I doubt this is the only vet it has happened to. But, I also certainly don't think it is common at all.
Yes, I agree. I have experience only with one clinic, and one hospital, but in talking with my friends around the country, this seems to be the case.
HorseSoldier
Member
Hundreds? Tens of thousands is probably more accurate. A PTSD diagnosis would not result in someone becoming a prohibited person unless they made statements or actions that prompted their care provider to break confidentiality and report them to law enforcement (i.e. made a credible threat to harm themselves or others that could not be addressed by their care providers), thereby putting them into the realm of involuntary incarceration by law enforcement for evaluation and possible commitment, etc.
PTSD is an entirely adaptive and healthy response to living in a world where there are pervasive and common threats to your life. There wasn't really a downside to when caveman Oog saw caveman Tor killed by a sabre tooth tiger and developed a hair trigger for danger in his environment. Down through the centuries the folks who didn't develop what we'd now diagnose as PTSD in the face of lethal threats in the environment tended to get killed more and did not pass on their genes etc etc.
It only really becomes non-adaptive when our world gets complicated enough that we can drop people into incredibly stressful/dangerous environments where they develop normal reactions and then pluck them out of those settings and drop them back in our normal bubble wrapped oh-so-safe world. There are better and worse ways to do this -- Vietnam era deployment policies being perhaps the worst known example on a large scale -- but it's an inevitable consequence
First post, be gentle 
. (Note: bold and underline not yelling, just emphasizing )
I can only speak with respect to the laws here in Ohio since that is all I’m familiar with, but at least here a simple mental health diagnosis does not correlate to you losing your right to a firearm.
You must be admitted to a mental health institution, file to leave against medical advice, be taken to court and proven to be either a potential harm to yourself or others in order for 2923.13 of the ORC to prevent you from possessing a firearm. At this point in the process if your lawyer is any good they will inform you of the consequences if you lose the case (the ones I have seen do this). And you still have the opportunity to commit yourself and stay voluntarily at any point before your conviction, at which point 2923.12 does not apply.
Again I’m not familiar with other states, but this requirement seems to rule out the mental illnesses = loss of right to firearms train of thought. There are far more people with mental illnesses that have never been court ordered for a mandatory stay at an institution than there are who have. Should someone who is mentally ill, and threatening the lives of others (proven risk of harm to self or others again) lose their weapons rights temporarily? If they have a history or violent tendencies, then maybe they should, and have to appeal when they can be proven to no longer be a risk to others. If they have otherwise been an upstanding citizen with no evidence to support the fact that they are a risk to others, then they would not have a reason to be forcibly committed in the first place, and would have no restrictions against their right to own firearms.
I think that the law as it is written in Ohio is about as fair as it gets without having any limitations for the mentally ill. That is….if the judicial system worked perfectly, without opinionated bias :banghead: , I believe that the law as it stands here could indeed prevent some incidents (now who wants to show me a person without opinions).
In closing:
Are there mentally ill persons whom I would not be comfortable having firearms? Definitely.
Are there just as many if not more “balanced” individuals who I believe are not responsible enough to own firearms? Absolutely.
However, my personal beliefs about another individual do not prevent that individual from exercising their basic rights, and that’s the way it should be.
Just as in the “normal” population, I believe that a person’s actions (violent offenders without excuse for their mental state) should be the only limiting factor in their access to weapons, both groups should be treated equally.
Edit: and please if someone can point out somewhere in the Ohio Revised code that says different from what I have posted above, I would love to be brought up to speed : ) .
. (Note: bold and underline not yelling, just emphasizing )I can only speak with respect to the laws here in Ohio since that is all I’m familiar with, but at least here a simple mental health diagnosis does not correlate to you losing your right to a firearm.
You must be admitted to a mental health institution, file to leave against medical advice, be taken to court and proven to be either a potential harm to yourself or others in order for 2923.13 of the ORC to prevent you from possessing a firearm. At this point in the process if your lawyer is any good they will inform you of the consequences if you lose the case (the ones I have seen do this). And you still have the opportunity to commit yourself and stay voluntarily at any point before your conviction, at which point 2923.12 does not apply.
Again I’m not familiar with other states, but this requirement seems to rule out the mental illnesses = loss of right to firearms train of thought. There are far more people with mental illnesses that have never been court ordered for a mandatory stay at an institution than there are who have. Should someone who is mentally ill, and threatening the lives of others (proven risk of harm to self or others again) lose their weapons rights temporarily? If they have a history or violent tendencies, then maybe they should, and have to appeal when they can be proven to no longer be a risk to others. If they have otherwise been an upstanding citizen with no evidence to support the fact that they are a risk to others, then they would not have a reason to be forcibly committed in the first place, and would have no restrictions against their right to own firearms.
I think that the law as it is written in Ohio is about as fair as it gets without having any limitations for the mentally ill. That is….if the judicial system worked perfectly, without opinionated bias :banghead: , I believe that the law as it stands here could indeed prevent some incidents (now who wants to show me a person without opinions).
In closing:
Are there mentally ill persons whom I would not be comfortable having firearms? Definitely.
Are there just as many if not more “balanced” individuals who I believe are not responsible enough to own firearms? Absolutely.
However, my personal beliefs about another individual do not prevent that individual from exercising their basic rights, and that’s the way it should be.
Just as in the “normal” population, I believe that a person’s actions (violent offenders without excuse for their mental state) should be the only limiting factor in their access to weapons, both groups should be treated equally.
Edit: and please if someone can point out somewhere in the Ohio Revised code that says different from what I have posted above, I would love to be brought up to speed : ) .
1stmarine said:
If someone, anyone, is doing things with a gun that are making you feel unsafe (such as shooting into the air in a populated area or pointing his orh er gun at oncoming cars) you should call the police. Retrieve your own gun in the meantime if you feel the need to and use it to defend yourself if you must until the police arrive and handle the situation.
But assuming they have no history of violence dangerous behavior, why should anyone have the power to restrict someone's right to defend himself?
Are you saying that it's best to just assume someone will be dangerous without any evidence and strip their rights away, just to be safe?
Because again, there are those would disarm you and me too - just to be safe.
So whether you see it as a "rights" issue or not, it is.
I have worked with MH/MR clients in the past and some of them truly couldn't be trusted with anything that they could hurt themself or someone else with. There's no argument that some people fit into that category. But a great many don't. Until someone does something to become identified as a danger to themself or others, you can't just assume that they are and strip their rights away.
archigos said:
I agree entirely. Vague, blanket definitions can't work in this sitaution. The only way it can possibly work is on a case-by-case basis. It's not the most efficient, but it is the only way to ensure maximum respect for the rights of others.
And since I want my rights respected, I owe others the same respect for their rights - regardless of what condition their health is in.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
