Mental issues and firearms

[shootingthebreeze]

I'm a Registered Nurse, firearm owner and a very concerned citizen relating to the issue of mental health and firearm ownership. Just about every day, one reads about cases of suicide, murder suicide and individuals who should not have firearms due to a history of depression or other diagnosed mental problem.
Owning a firearm entails great responsibility. One can begin owning firearms but what happens if later one is diagnosed with depression or other mental illness requiring medication? What would be the legal and moral thing to do?
Myself, if I was diagnosed by a physician having a mental problem requiring treatment the first thing I would do is give away legally my firearms to a close relative. That would be the end of firearm ownership forever.
What would you do if you were later diagnosed with a mental condition?
Responsibility first rests with oneself. One does not drink alcohol while using firearms. Foregoing a right to bear arms should be set aside when public safety to include individual safety I at risk.

 

[stressed]

Hmm. Well I don't agree with your political beliefs, so therefore I am diagnosing you as mentally ill. Give me all your guns.

See how slippery this slope is?

Oh, and there are many people diagnosed with depression and on medication that own guns. As a RN, I would think you would be aware of just how many of millions of Americans are on anti-depressants...

 

[Frank Ettin]

Moved from Legal -- not on-topic for that Forum.

 

[plodder]

Foregoing a right to bear arms should be set aside when public safety to include individual safety I at risk.

Not to be a grammar Nazi, but I think this statement is a bit self contradictory. But, I think I do get your point and my answer is NO! What definition and who's opinion are you going to use to determine "mental problem"? Are you then also going to get rid of all knives, baseball bats, pieces of rope, automobiles; everything that could be used to cause mayhem & injury to yourself and others?

I, for one, am not so willing to forego liberty for a little security.

 

[Blackbeard]

If I were diagnosed, I'd like to think I'd ask a friend to hold my guns for me. I would not favor a law requiring those diagnosed to surrender all arms to the government. That would have the adverse consequence of possibly preventing someone who needs treatment from seeking it.

I guess the question here is, if you do have a mental disorder, do you ever really get better? Who is going to go on record and say, "yes, you're ok to have guns again?" I can't imagine anyone going out on that limb.

 

[Sam1911]

With all the enormous variety of things that are considered mental illnesses, I don't know how one could answer such a question. You have OCD? You have acute agoraphobia? Or you have paranoid delusions and violent psychosis? Lots of variety there. Some very dangerous to all around you. Most not at all. I don't think we understand the phenomena well enough to be writing laws about it -- any further than what we already have. To wit: if you harm someone, or seriously attempt to, you will be arrested, charged, and tried for that crime. Mentally ill or not.

Trying to be preemptive is generally a losing concern, with astronomical levels of "unintended" consequences.

Now, as to what would or should someone personally do if they were diagnosed with a mental illness that -- for the sake of argument -- generally is attended by violent tendencies? Well...why would it be rational to expect such a person to voluntarily give up their means of protecting themselves from threats real or imagined? Practically speaking, that might be a bit like telling folks who think they're drowning to voluntarily let go of the life buoy.

 

[W.E.G.]

Mental health disorders are not like leprosy, where you either have it or you don't.

Severity ranges the gamut from barely detectible to overwhelming, and is dynamic over time within an individual.

The real question that has to be asked is what is to be the threshold for sanction.

The answer is: It already exists.

When ADJUDICATED mentally defective you lose your gun rights.
That's the law.

Now, if you want to self-sanction yourself because you don't feel safe, that's your judgment. I'm "depressed" when my goldfish dies. I'm not going to pack up my gun collection when it happens.

Err on the side of liberty.

This goes for how you handle yourself as well as how "the government" should allow us to protect ourselves.

 

[blarby]

Remember- it's not paranoia if they are actually coming to get you... I see sams point on this one.

Having asked for and recieved firearms for safekeeping from someone who had an unstable individual in the home, I know this can be an incredibly delicate subject. However, unless we find some way to prevent the " bad guy with a gun" from this commonly unfolding scenario, its just going to keep happening.

I don't have that answer, but the only way we're going to find it is through dialogue.

I think this is one of those scenarios where "knowing your neighbors" so to speak ( having people who actually care in the circle of your life, and mutually knowing a little about whats going on within those circles) makes the critical difference. It's also one area where america is starting to lose some traction along the lines of civility and family... and its not surprising to me that more people are thusly falling through the cracks in that faltering safety net of civilization.

 

[rule303]

To the OP: So if you were going through a very bad patch in your life, had some very traumatic event, etc, and got depressed you would just give away all your guns? How about a reformed alcoholic, or gamling addict? These are all diagnosable mental conditions.
The right to keep and bear arms is constitutionally guaranteed. Should a person suffering from depression be denied their freedom of speech? Religion? Right to due process?
The term mental illness covers anything from PTSD and mild depression, to schizophrenia and psychopathy. I would assume that the vast majority of people being treated for mental issues pose no danger to themselves or others, but of course a small percentage do. Who gets to decide?
According to NIMH, there are approximately 57.7million Americans suffering from a mental disorder. How many mass shootings have we had? Your chances of getting struck by lightning are much higher than being a victim of a mass shooter.

 

[Neo-Luddite]

Mental Illness, except at the obvious extremes, is defined by medical and social conventions and values---and even prejudices. It's easy to forget that being gay was a mental disorder in the DSM until the '70's. By its nature this system of classification is mutable. There are those who would, to serve their political agenda, have many types of beliefs and behaviors included as mental illnesses. Many would go far as seeing the ownership (or desire to obtain) firearms as symptoms of a mental disorder (this one is often tied to PTSD).

Obviously it is the responsible thing to turn one's weapons over to a trusted person for safekeeping if experiencing mental illness and it is the right thing to do, but having such a presumably treatable condition being the "End of firearm ownership forever" is something you can only impose on yourself. To make such prohibitions public policy would result in people not seeking treatment who need help and to further make second-class citizens of the mentally ill; we arleady do quite a bit of that and a mental health history, even a minor one, can entail the loss of many job opportunities. The stigma is still there, and probably always will be.

 

[Godsgunman]

"Practically speaking, that would be a bit like telling folks who think they're drowning to voluntarily let go of the life buot."

^^ this

I am also in the medical field and see diagnoses like ADHD and the such highly over diagnosed and medicated. College students wanting to get an edge up on their studies, parents not wanting to "be a parent" and turning to these drugs to "help their kids", ie get them off their back. Should these "mentally ill" patients be denied their Constitutional Right? What about things that aren't a Constitutional right like driving? What about employment? Who wants to hire a "mentally ill" person who can't focus on their duties without the use of drugs? I see doctors everyday throw around diagnoses that are false just so the patients insurance company will cover the testing that the doctor wants to do. If you are fine giving up a God given, Constitutional guaranteed right that has been fought for and defended with blood by generations of patriots then feel free. I for one am not that ignorant of how slippery a slope such thinking is.
With all that said, yes, there truly are people who are mentally deranged and should be institutionalized and not allowed to be without supervision and tight monitoring but those are few and far between.

 

[Davek1977]

"Mental Illness" covers such a wide variety of afflictions, there is ABSOLUTELY no way I support a mere finding of someone being "mentally ill" as a disqualifier from gun ownership. Situational depression, such as that which a good many go through after the loss of a loved one or some other traumatic event, and sometimes requiring some medication, is a whole lot different than someone who is schizophrenic and violently delusional, yet both fall under the veil of "mental illness". Giving one's guns up easy....getting them back isn't, always...and a term as generic as "mental illness" SHOULD NEVER be used as the sole basis of denying someone their 2nd Amendment rights.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Not a firearm issue but I suggest you read up on the Rosenhan Experiment.

Mike

PS. Would you give up your much more dangerous car as well?

 

[silicosys4]

I had this same argument with a former friend.
His take was that preemptive seizure of someones guns based on a determination of mental health inadequacy was a good idea. Funny how he argued that we can all trust a government approved panel for that, yet his felony was just a mistake and he was getting screwed out of HIS rights.
I argued that there are already laws in place that will take away ones rights based on their actions being harmful, thereby there is no place for a preemptive seizure or forfeiture. This country has never been based on punishing people for what you "think" they might do. There are punishments in place for the appropriate violent crimes ranging up to the death sentence, a lesser punishment is the forfeiture of your gun rights so I think there is no place for a preemptive approach.
If you are violent you are punished. If you are dangerously mentally ill you are deemed so and your firearm rights are removed
Until you are violent you are just another American enjoying your freedom to be weird, imo.

 

[HoosierQ]

"Mental Issues"...what the heck are "Mental Issues"? And who decides?

Somebody has an abiding interest in stockings and high heels...I mean really digs that? Well that's certainly a "mental issue"...probably a name for it. No guns for you you naughty boy!

Somebody has a dying elderly parent and is depressed about watching the long course of late-life deterioration. No guns for you sad man!

Somebody has a stressful job and is having a great deal of trouble sleeping due to tension, nightmares, etc. No guns for you sleep deprived guy!

... n ...

Somebody hears "Satan" 24/7 telling them to kill everybody in the neighborhood because they are alians from Jupiter that sprung from pods so that they can take over the world and has already actually taken a shot at somebody and missed. No guns for you violent schizo person!

See the problem here? There are probably 10,000 scenarios of "mental issues" that fall there where the "... n ..." sits now.

So no, people with "mental issues" should not give up or allow their rights to be infringed any more than anybody else should.

 

[bainter1212]

15 years ago I struggled with depression. I even took meds for 6 months.
I got better and have never fallen into depression since. Not even close to it in fact.

Talking about mental illness like it is an incurable thing is dangerous when it comes to civil rights.

As has been posted above, err on the side of liberty.

 

[cammogunner]

well that is for sure a thing to think about but to my knowledge most of the country is probably on an anti depresent it conserns me a rn is not aware of this i recomend not giving a gun away if you are depressed. people get depressed in the winter for a short time but if you give a gun away every winter you are a retard imo

 

[SunnySlopes]

if I was diagnosed ........ the first thing I would do is give away legally my firearms

This is just full of naive. What if you disagreed with the diagnosis? Do you think that there's any case where a psychotic insisted he was perfectly fine?

I minored in psychology at the university level and in the course of my career counseled mentally disturbed people. The fact is that they don't necessarily believe they have a problem. That's characteristic of mental illness.

The big issue is, who makes the determination that you're going to give up/forfeit your right to firearms ownership? You're saying that in your case, it's voluntary. What happens when the government makes that determination for you? Has there ever been a case when the government abused their decision making power?

It's a rhetorical question. The government does nothing but abuse their decision making power. For that reason, I could never agree with your premise.

Foregoing a right to bear arms should be set aside when public safety to include individual safety I at risk.

The problem is that the (current contemporary) public doesn't have brains enough to be able to determine when they are, or are not, at risk. The fact of what we allow vs what we forbid is proof of that.

The most recent Fort Hood shooting is proof. The people with the power to make decisions (the type of decisions you're referring to) had already determined that it's safer for all military (other than, I assume, MPs) to go unarmed, than to risk ordinary soldiers to carry personal sidearms.

Obviously, the decision makers were wrong. (Are they ever right?) I would prefer those decision makers not have the power to say when I can, or cannot, own firearms. Frankly, I trust the judgment of a lunatic more than the power brokers in DC.

What you're suggesting just won't work.

 

[Ed Ames]

Homosexuality is still treated as a disease by many physicians. A patient in California recently caused a ruccus when he realized his primary care provider had him diagnosed as exhibiting "homosexual behavior (302.0)", and the general response was, "That's what we're supposed to do."

Mental illness is a blanket term for many different types of condition, with many different causes. Some forms are chronic and currently incurable. Others are not. To treat mental illness as though it is a "once it happens, your life is changed forever" condition is both technically incorrect and effectively counterproductive. The OP's premise that they would give their guns away and never own again is a manifestation of that, as are many of the laws we have today. They are wrong, and they create a negative incentive to receive treatment.

I have strong personal reasons for believing the mental health approach of the US is dangerously out of whack. It leaves sick people, and their families, without any effective means of getting help they desperately need. I have seen just how broken it is from closer than I want. I also think that permanently stripping civil liberties from people who have had medical problems at one point in their life will only make a bad situation worse.

We have a .. I won't say moral obligation, but a self interest ... in helping people who are mentally ill to get better. Not only does it make us safer because mentally ill people can be a hazard, but there is a reasonable chance that you or someone you care about will need help at some point in their life. That interest is not served by stripping people with medical problems of their civil rights.

 

[chris in va]

Friend of mine is diagnosed with depression but is well controlled on medication. She has a carry permit but rarely carries just because she doesn't perceive a daily threat. I have no problem with this, it's her choice.

Now should her rights be taken away due to her diagnosis? If doctors had their way, we would all have some sort of disorder and feed the pockets of drug manufacturers.

I've actually read accounts of doctors wanting to classify gun ownership as a mental disorder. I guess you would fall into that category.

 

[Godsgunman]

I also want to add the scenarios of post partum depression and menopause. Should we just ban all women from the right to own firearms? The hormone imbalances from both conditions can cause depression, suicidal thoughts, and other forms of "mental illness". I guess all women over 40 should be banned from owning a firearm. Even some women on their monthly cycles can have fits of rage and irrational mood swings. I guess the 2nd Amendment should only apply to men then. See how ridiculous this line of thinking can be?

 

[Arkansas Paul]

With all the enormous variety of things that are considered mental illnesses, I don't know how one could answer such a question.

This.
I'm a psychology major, and while I am not finished (2 semesters to go) I have learned quiet a bit about the subject. Simply being diagnosed with any mental illness doesn't tell you very much.
Like Sam said, there's a big difference between something like OCD and schizophrenia where you are paranoid and are 100% convinced people are out to get you.

 

[Schwing]

Years ago, I was on medication for severe anxiety and panic attacks. Over the last couple of decades, as I have seen where the gun/metal illness debate has been headed, I stopped that and just deal with it. The irony is that shooting/reloading has become a huge cathartic activity for me that keeps me happy.

I am not saying that people shouldn't take meds, but my experience has been that I am no worse off of them than I was on them.

I also don't want to lose my 2nd amendments rights the day the grabbers cheerfully pass some "mental health" bill.

To anyone dealing with this, you know what is going on in your head better than anyone else. You know if you are a danger to yourself or others. Use some judgement and act accordingly. I thank God that my own condition is more a discomfort than a disability and I feel for those who really struggle with these issues.

EDIT: I would also add that people with hoplophobia (fear of weapons) are probably better off not owning guns

 

[shootingthebreeze]

To focus on...

...what I said-a diagnosed mental condition by a physician and treated by a physician through medication and therapy. This would include a diagnosis of beginnings of mental dementia as well.
Lets be clear on this: not what the neighbor says about another person. A person who develops a mental condition diagnosed by a doctor and who treats this condition.
Depression for example can occur-which makes it more likely for a person who owns a firearm to use a firearm in a suicide or murder suicide. Problem is how to identify if the person has not seen a doctor for the depression.
I think it would be a moral issue on the part of the person who is identified and treated for a diagnosed mental condition to turn over to a close relative his or her firearms in a legal manner. I'm not suggesting turning over weapons to the government/state! One should know who would get ones firearms upon death or disability, like a close family member/son/daughter etc., And I would consider a serious mental illness a serious disability. As I mentioned above what about beginning stages of dementia diagnosed by a physician? I think that would be grounds for relinquishing ones firearms.

 

[Sam1911]

So you're really only talking about a very few (???) very specific (???) sets of well-defined psychological conditions? And this is a VOLUNTARY thing based on the patient's perception of risk to himself or others? I have no problem with that line of thought.

But when you get into laws, and what the state should require because someone is being TREATED (not "adjudicated mentally defective") -- you're really off the path.