Mental Health and Firearms Ownership, what do you think?

[JustinJ]

David Berkowitz is obviously a person who should not have been allowed to own a firearm but the problem is predicting such behaviour in advance. The other problem is that when a crazy person, or anybody for that matter, goes on a shooting spree it almost always becomes ammunition against gun rights. Excuse the pun.

 

[Zoogster]

tweedle said:

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.

In California a temporary hold, that can be given to anyone and requires no court appearance removes the right to arms and makes someone a prohibited person for 5 years.

tweedle said:

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?

Criminal law already covers this. If someone is threatening other people they are committing a felony and can be arrested and lose their firearm rights. We call them violent criminals.

As for protecting them from themselves, well as noble as that may sound in a free society I think protecting someone from themselves is low on the list of priorities.



These discussions are also not based on existing laws, but on people that want additional restrictions, so discussing what is currently in place regarding such things partially misses the point.
Restrictions that could quite readily become retroactive in nature if passed, like the misdemeanor domestic violence prohibition was and yet has remained law for a long time.
Someone treated for PTSD could become prohibited 10 years later from new legislation, just as those that were found or plead guilty to a misdemeanor domestic violence charge back before it removed gun rights.
The discretionary nature of diagnosis could also allow easy manipulation by those that don't like firearms in removing firearm rights from people whenever they wished, without all the protections intentionally built into our criminal justice system. People guilty of no actual crimes (otherwise they would already be prohibited under criminal law.)

That is not to say there is not people I would rather not have guns that have committed no crimes but are unstable, but that it is too dangerous to freedoms and would cause more harm to freedom than any good it would accomplish. It is a ripe tool of tyranny, and was in fact used in other nations to enable tyranny. Someone else brought up such use in the Soviet Union earlier in the thread.

 

[1stmarine]

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.

AGREE

But assuming they have no history of violence dangerous behavior, why should anyone have the power to restrict someone's right to defend himself?

AGREE, Nobody should have the power specifically, a process should be in place same way we can know a person is mentally safe to pilot a plane, or operate a critical part of a nuclear plant, etc... It is not a bout negating anything across the board but also this doesn't mean that we shouldn't do a better job finding out who could be a serious risk to oneself or others.

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?

No I never said this.

Because again, there are those would disarm you and me too - just to be safe.

I am ready to certify to carry a firearm any time. If someone finds I am not suited for that I will accept based on reasonable evidence but if I am a deeply disturbed person I might need help as I might not even understand this simple concept.

So whether you see it as a "rights" issue or not, it is.

IT is always a rights issue. Whether is the job a stake, firearms rights or anything impacting the life of a mentally unstable person and it must be handled with the most profound respect and compassion.

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.

Those are the ones we are talking about here. And lets be honest everyone has been outraged about what happened in Arizona assassinating people like this and raised many questions understandably. Now you have the ones that are trying to make a political gain out of the situation but this is not about politics and common sense.

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.

AGREE

 

[Tweedle]

zoogster

As for protecting them from themselves, well as noble as that may sound in a free society I think protecting someone from themselves is low on the list of priorities.

Agreed, I was just quoting the requirement as presented by the ORC.

These discussions are also not based on existing laws, but on people that want additional restrictions, so discussing what is currently in place regarding such things partially misses the point.

Are there currently any proposed new laws, or changes in laws that would effect this population then? Or is this entire thread a hypothetical?

In California a temporary hold, that can be given to anyone and requires no court appearance removes the right to arms and makes someone a prohibited person for 5 years.

From this short excerpt of the law, doesn't sounds like a particularly great piece of legislation,IMO, sorry that people have to deal with this.

That is not to say there is not people I would rather not have guns that have committed no crimes but are unstable, but that it is too dangerous to freedoms and would cause more harm to freedom than any good it would accomplish. It is a ripe tool of tyranny, and was in fact used in other nations to enable tyranny. Someone else brought up such use in the Soviet Union earlier in the thread.

Not sure if this was a reply to my post or not, so, disregard if not.

My personal beliefs on the topic, as copied from my previous post.

"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."

Of course I lead up to that by presenting those I would not wish to have firearms, but I believe we are saying the same thing here.

 

[Macgille]

There is no real right answer. So I fall back on the Constitution. "the right of the People". All of the people. Criminal law already covers the criminally insane. Who makes the determination of "mentally Ill"? You? Me? a lawyer? A doctor? A liberal? A conservative? I know, A COMMITTEE!. Yay! question answered.

 

[1stmarine]

If someone has a history of being hospitalized for a serious mental condition in most states (I think) the CCW permit will be denied. That is a fact and I support this 100%.
I think that initially doctors are the ones to determine if a person can be a danger to himself or others.

Just take a moment and think about this for a second please?...

Senior Egyptian pilot deeply mentally disturbed commits suicide and kills 217 passengers out of the coast of Massachusetts. This is real life, real people that are dead...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAir_Flight_990

I answered all questions but nobody replied to my question. Should the pilot be relieved of his duty or should we feel that he would have been targeted and discriminated? Pilots have the lives of thousands of people on their hands every year. Their job is something wonderful but also potentially very dangerous if it is not handled correctly.
This is a very sad story in deed. Some entire families and kids were dead just in an instant.
If someone has a serious mental condition but it has never had treatment or has no record at all (like above) then detection is much harder to manage but those that see the potential trouble should speak up and prevent things like this from happening.

On our side, as responsible citizens and firearm enthusiasts we can do better, and help with whatever our country needs from us. We are not going to resolve all the problems and situations like the terrible tragedy above might occur again but this doesn't mean that we should sit back and DO NOTHING.

The signs of deep trouble where there. Since then a lot of things had changed in the airlines to screen aircrew folks for signs of trouble. Not even one single person has complained about discrimination, they are ready to take the tests as they are responsible citizens and they see this is necessary.

In addition,
As much as anyone can, try not to mix politics with firearms rights. People from both parties have been using the Rights to bear arms to fill their agendas and provide the illusion that they are helping but some are doing more harm than good. Yes, there are many organizations that are affiliated with political parties that support the 2nd amendment and yes they do help but at the same time we have to keep in mind what other agendas might be hidden from us. I don't think that individuals or organizations should use our fears to loosing our arms or any other fears to support a specific person, party or organization. Specially using incendiary words about any opposition is not going to get anyone far.
It is again the very foundation of this country to discuss in healthy debate about problems and find possible solutions. But the sad part is that politicians are corrupt, and they run campaigns like if it was a popularity challenge and we even support this media frenzy. Many times politicians here and abroad all they one is to look good on TV and that's it.

You see, the right to bear arms is in the supreme law of the land so you do not need any party to tell you if this is a right or not.

 

[oneounceload]

Personally, I find most of the "mental health" issues to be more about creating new layers of bureaucracy and federal funding than actually having issues; i.e. - most mental issues really aren't, but they sound good. I saw the same thing when teaching elementary kids fir several years - the amount of kids with "learning disorders" was 1000's of times higher than just a few generations ago - some say better diagnosis - I say just another way to pad payroll and get federal money - most folks really are just fine - the small percentage that really ARE mentally handicapped in a psychotic way should never be allowed near anything capable of causing harm to anyone, including themselves.

Who to determine? THAT'S the scary thought as anyone who has ever watched "One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest" can ascertain

 

[Danb1215]

You can continue to spout cases of "mentally ill" people causing problems in the workplace until you're blue in the face. If someone can not competently do a job they shouldn't be employed in that position, and that's not discrimination. Work place discrimination exists when employees are screened on any factor besides there ability to do the job, you're suggesting its the opposite.

That however isn't the purpose of this thread. As I stated to you before: Being employed in a chemical factory or as a commercial jet pilot is not a basic human right, but self defense is. As such I don't think anyone should lose there ability to defend themselves under ANY circumstance.

Stop posting random potentially dangerous jobs and asking if we are comfortable with a dangerously ill person doing them. It couldn't possibly be less relevant.

 

[Taurus 66]

!!

If someone can not competently do a job they shouldn't be employed in that position, and that's not discrimination.

OMG, you just solved the problem of management overall - BRILLIANT! ... and I do not intend it to be a joke of any kind whatsoever, so do not expect a slick smiley emoticon.

Work place discrimination exists when employees are screened on any factor besides there ability to do the job, you're suggesting its the opposite.

Workplace discrimination is based on the guidelines of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Any employer (or officers working for that employer) who violates any/all of these rules is a criminal!!!..... that is unless the EEOC steps in and defends the employer, then all is washed clean, forgiven, and the employee ultimately loses all together 9 times out of 10 EVEN if (s)he has a legitimate case with solid evidence.

Sorry about going OT but I just needed to vent for a few minutes.

 

[oneounceload]

As such I don't think anyone should lose there ability to defend themselves under ANY circumstance.

That does not necessarily mean having a gun as a "basic human right"

 

[1stmarine]

This is all very relevant in deed.
The pilot was doing his job until he decided to kill himself and everyone along with him.
A firearm has a purpose to provide food (hunting), self defense even simply a deterrent, but it is in fact is a tool that can kill many people quickly. Some designed for that purpose only.
So like the pilot doing his job and the person holding his firearm don't both might require at some precise moment the precondition must exist that either person has to use good judgment and can differentiate right from wrong and the consequences of a potentially deadly situation, not just for themselves but for many others?
Yes or no?

If you anyone wants another example lets talk about that crazy person in Arizona that shot all that people that everyone, including the antigun activists, have in mind, should we?
The anti-gun activists love this type of situations as it provides them with the type of publicity they need to use in their attacks to the firearms enthusiasts and the 2nd amendment folks and then demand further restrictions. Why firearm owners do not want to talk about the issue and see if anything can be done to prevent crazy people from buying a gun?
Those that are doing that illegally we cannot control obviously but there might be someway we can help in many other directions.

Preventing everything will be impossible but I am pretty sure something can be done in good faith and with healthy dialog.

Some folks they are simply not interested in discussing anything just taking polarizing opinions.

Reason and men sometimes are like the chicken and the fox.

 

[Danb1215]

^ 1st Marine: Yes a crazy person with a plane and a crazy person with a gun are both dangerous. It has never been my intent now or at any other time to argue that guns can never be dangerous. As the saying goes "I wouldn't carry it if it weren't dangerous". My point in playing the devils advocate in this thread is that if we as a group are willing to make blanket judgment calls as to who can and who can't have firearms we'll soon find ourselves all legally disarmed and being marched to concentration camps, and I don't consider that hyperbole.

One ounce Load: I didn't say that having a gun specifically was a human right. However I believe that self defense in its general form is such a right. If 500 years ago that meant carrying a sword, and today it means carrying a Glock, then I'm all for it.

 

[1stmarine]

Society is very different than 500 years ago. Weapons and their power too.

We are working with many kids with broken minds and hearts and this is the type of situation that want to avoid. The first they need is lots of support and love more than any Glocks....

http://www.adn.com/2010/04/27/1252786/soldier-killed-wife-daughter-police.html

Please think.

 

[HorseSoldier]

That shooting is a particularly messed up situation. I remain amazed the guy lived and was in a condition to stand trial after suck starting his pistol after he shot his wife and daughter.

 

[Danb1215]

I agree that compassion would solve a lot of problems that weapons can't/shouldn't. We likely wouldn't have problems like the one mentioned in your cited article if we weren't throwing teenagers lives away by the plane load and forcing them to witness and partake in the worst bloodsport society has yet to come up with in countries they could neither pronounce nor locate on a map. PTSD and related problems are awful for all involved, and are no doubt very serious and very real.

As I've said every time I've posted: I have never once suggested that there weren't dangerous people and dangerous problems in society. However restrictions on firearms ownership don't do anything to solve any of those problems or to make us safer in any way.

 

[1stmarine]

The way I see it we need to think about everyone. Those that died, those that survived. Control freaks are everywhere and we need to get way smarter at educating folks including our own children about their rights but not just 2nd amendment but all the rights, and obligations. Also we need to be involved and understand how we can evolve, we cannot move forward trying to fit dry cut some policies from the times of Jefferson applied in modern times.

When I say we need to be active I mean active. Not just talking here in this forums. These forums have actually provided me with some great insight from other members to consider alternatives, other perspectives and ultimately helped resolve real issues.

I got a lot of PMs and ideas from many members here. Read more below anyone interested although this might seem diverting a little from the original post it is also related somehow to what is involved in being a responsible firearm owner, knowing more about the rights, the current struggles and but also our obligations as good citizens.....

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=559899

A lot of people are deeply involved. We have to discuss and be constructive and then we can show those lawyers and politicians how to do it. We need to show them better ways.

 

[JohnBT]

"That does not necessarily mean having a gun as a "basic human right" "

I don't know man, the UN says that internet access is a basic human right. Really. I just read it in the morning paper.

 

[Mike1234567]

Even in the old Wild West sheriffs could and did disarm folks who behaved dangerously without provocation. And it was open carry back then.

It's not a simple a matter of "mental illness" because there are many benign forms of that. It's a matter of erratic/dangerous behavior. There are many forms of "mental illness" that do and should prevent those individuals suffering with it from owning or operating firearms. Some cannot operate heavy machinery or sell prescription drugs or care for minor children. Simply put, there is no denying that some people cannot responsibly own firearms.

Now... who decides who may or may not own firearms? That's the real dilemna and should be very carefully monitored by third parties.

 

[Cosmoline]

The first they need is lots of support and love more than any Glocks....

The example you cite is a murdering filthy rat who slaughtered his wife and child then failed to kill himself. At trial he's blamed some unspecified third parties for killing them. He's not a man, let alone a soldier. He's a good argument for the death penalty in this state to finish the job he bungled. He's not an argument for more support or love. He's an argument for aluminum baseball bats and a hole in a deserted field. The criminal SHOT A BABY and an UNARMED WOMAN then failed to have the guts to even admit he'd done it! You don't get much lower than that.

More to the point, there's been no evidence that he had PTSD or that any stricter gun control laws would have done anything to keep him from doing what he did. Psychopaths are cunning and excellent at hiding their madness. Stricter laws on the mentally ill and firearms are more likely to punish the merely eccentric guy who wanders around talking to himself but would never hurt a fly. Or the seriously depressed person who's reaching out for help and gets thrown in a secured facility instead, finding his firearms seized and his rights to obtain them revoked.

Now... who decides who may or may not own firearms? That's the real dilemna and should be very carefully monitored by third parties.

That is a false dilema. Either a person has committed a felony or they have not. If they have, then their rights to keep and bear arms are stripped away after jury trial. If they have not, then they still have those and other rights. Period. Preemptive decisions about who can be trusted with firearms rest on the assumption that the RKBA is really a privilege akin to driving.

 

[JohnBT]

Regarding that soldier who killed his family.

I didn't see any mention in the article of any previous mental health issues or treatment. How does that case apply to the topic under discussion - keeping guns from those diagnosed as mentally ill? You propose keeping someone like him from having a gun? Why? Based on what? Is there something you know about the case that we don't?

 

[HorseSoldier]

He was recently back from a deployment, if I recall correctly, which raises the possibility of PTSD. On the other hand, I don't think his defense at trial made any effort to introduce mental health issues into the equation. Since he wasn't at all forthcoming about the events leading up to him shooting them, there's no telling what motivated or provoked his actions.

 

[Zoogster]

HorseSoldier said:

He was recently back from a deployment, if I recall correctly, which raises the possibility of PTSD.

For all you know that soldier found out his 8 month old daughter was the result of an affair his wife had while he was deployed for most of the last year, and he flipped out and it had nothing to do with his deployment. He may have been perfectly fine and thrilled going home, with no illness to find.
He was only 21, his wife 19, young hormones, emotions.

What people are suggesting highlighting such things is trying to search people for thought crimes, find pre-crimes and prohibit guaranteed rights to prevent them. Searching individuals for any sign of possible stress or difficulty in order to disarm them. Disarm thousands of returning vets because a small umber of them might have done something and were theoretically prevented.
In a nation where you are supposed to let guilty men go free rather than unjustly convict an innocent man in our legal system, doing the reverse for gun rights with arbitrary diagnosis to maybe prevent something seems contradictory.


On top of that this is a strong healthy young man working as Military Police, and a comparatively weak young 19 year old girl that just had a baby. I doubt he would have had any trouble killing her with any number of regular everyday objects if not his bare hands.
Almost every home I have been in has large kitchen knives, innumerable blunt objects, etc Are you going to remove their ability to cut food, or keep tools?
A strong man could pick up many pieces of furniture and cause lethal injuries with them, maybe no furniture as well?
Flammable liquids have been used in some horrendous attacks, perhaps they shouldn't be able to buy fuel for their vehicle either. Of course they shouldn't be able to drive either.
Potentially strangling her with rope, cords, or even a piece of clothing means the family needs to live naked and without electrical items.
An 8 month old baby is a sitting duck and a gun certainly was not necessary.

The reason a firearm is often chosen when available is because it is the item people in society associate with killing other people. So someone making such a decision is more apt to grab a gun. But no gun available does not protect women and children from stronger men, especially those they live with.

You cannot protect women and young children from the men they are living with by removing firearms.

 

[CapnMac]

I'm always troubled by those supporting any form of blanket legal duress. Any situation where "once an A; always an A."

The only blanket restriction I'm comfortable with is, if a person needs to be in custody, they do not need arms. Anything else is splitting hairs and attempting pre facto protections--which will fail more often than they succeed.

If some one needs parental care (someone supervising en loco parentius), it really does not matter if they are a minor, mental, criminally malicious.

 

[Taurus 66]

What a joke thread!

 

[Danb1215]

What a joke thread!

How so? because the creator was an obvious shill, or because of the responses?