Mental issues and firearms

[rule303]

I think we are overlooking the most important fact of this whole issue. What if a law were passed that barred anyone with any history of mental illness from owning guns? Felons, and those convicted of domestic violence are prohibited from owning guns now, but continue to do so anyway. History has proven again and again that gun control doesn't work. Period.
This will be the next big push from the anti's. And judging from the comments from a few posters in this thread, I fear it will gain a lot of support.

 

[BryanDavis]

I think we are overlooking the most important fact of this whole issue. What if a law were passed that barred anyone with any history of mental illness from owning guns? Felons, and those convicted of domestic violence are prohibited from owning guns now, but continue to do so anyway. History has proven again and again that gun control doesn't work. Period.
This will be the next big push from the anti's. And judging from the comments from a few posters in this thread, I fear it will gain a lot of support.

That's a good point. It just really irks me that when people see a Fort Hood or a Newtown or even the movie Halloween and think "That's what mental illness is!"

A registered nurse should know better.

 

[DT Guy]

shootingthebreeze, you're trying to say that preventing suicide is a good reason to take away guns?

Perfect example of those who favor personal responsibility and those who prefer a nanny state. Anytime the government tries to protect folks from themselves, they're wrong.

Larry

 

[itsa pain]

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.

You are falling for antis propaganda. Cars require more responsibility and are more dangerous then guns yet a lot of crazy people drive cars

 

[d2wing]

So because people shoot themselves we should take away knives, ropes, belts, car keys and every other item ever used for suicide from anyone diagnosised with anything?

 

[AlexanderA]

The collateral effect of this drive to disqualify "mentally ill" people from having guns will be that people who need treatment, will stop seeking treatment. For that reason alone such a drive will likely be opposed by the psychiatric community.

The next thing you know, you will have to affirmatively prove, by means of a psychiatrist's certificate, that you are not mentally ill. What psychiatrist would want to be in the position of certifying a negative? I bet none (or very few) would do it, and then we'd be in a de facto situation of gun prohibition.

Add to that the extension of the gun prohibition to anyone having a so-called "mentally ill" person in their household (the Adam Lanza scenario), and the agenda of the gun banners will be complete.

 

[shootingthebreeze]

DT Guy, no just responding to Godsgunman's comment earlier-statistical information supports a higher suicide method by handguns in the US than any other method. CDC numbers confirm that. As far as firearms, I own firearms and have a CPL, so don't get the impression I'm "anti-gun". Far from it- but somehow, the issue of mental health and gun ownership needs to be addressed in this country.

 

[ugaarguy]

shootingthebreeze you confuse the tool with the effect. Japan has virtually no civilian firearms ownership, yet they have the highest suicide rate of any developed country. Advocating the revocation of second amendment rights based on any mental health diagnosis only further stigmatizes mental health treatment in the US, and discourages people from seeking treatment. People aren't treated will get worse. As a health care professional you should know and understand this, and you should be working to destigmatize mental health treatment rather than increasing the stigma.

Also, don't just dump links. Provide a summary of the article so we know what we're clicking on.

 

[ugaarguy]

As far as firearms, I own firearms and have a CPL, so don't get the impression I'm "anti-gun". Far from it-

Dianne Feinstein owns guns and has a carry permit too. She's also vehemently anti-gun.

but somehow, the issue of mental health and gun ownership needs to be addressed in this country.

No, mental health is the issue, not gun ownership. You could take away every firearm in this country and you'd do little to the suicide rate. Again, see Japan.

If you want to reduce suicides quit stigmatizing mental health treatment. Advocating taking away guns from anyone who seeks mental health treatment is only going to drive people away from seeking treatment. The fear of having second amendment rights revoked already stops many veterans from seeking treatment, and that group has the highest suicide rate in the country.

 

[shootingthebreeze]

ugaarguy, it's better to link a source article. The best source is the CDC.
Don't compare me to Feinstein, please. I am not anti gun. But the statistics relating to handgun suicides in the US rank high-the numbers don't lie. Unfortunately many have listened to the NRA which has attempted to divert attention from these facts.

 

[alsaqr]

There is a federal law defining mental illness standards that disqualify one from purchasing a firearm. That law is The NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007. Many states did not implement the new act.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr2640

Text:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr2640/text

Indiana has implemented The NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007. This is how it works in Indiana:

A new Indiana law requiring the courts to electronically provide the mental health data to the FBI was enacted July 1, 2009. Public Law 110-2009 requires the Indiana Supreme Court’s Division of State Court Administration to
establish and administer an electronic system for receiving information that relates to certain individuals who may be prohibited from possessing a firearm. It also requires the Division to transmit the information to the FBI so it can be included in the federal NICS.

JTAC developed the technology for Indiana trial courts to notify the Division of State Court Administration about individuals who fall under six categories that make them ineligible to possess a firearm. The categories are legally
defined by Indiana code, but generally include the following individuals:

• A person who has been civilly committed (does not include commitments for evaluation or observation)
• A person who has been found mentally ill and dangerous or gravely disabled
• A person who has been found guilty but mentally ill
• A person who has been found not responsible by reason of insanity
• A person who has been found incompetent to stand trial
• A person who has been found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility (accordingly to the
Uniform Code of Military Justice)

www.in.gov/.../jtac/files/jtac-factsheet-mentalhealth.pdf

 

[ugaarguy]

But the statistics relating to handgun suicides in the US rank high-the numbers don't lie.

Again, you can't see the difference between suicide and the tool used to commit suicide.

Unfortunately many have listened to the NRA which has attempted to divert attention from these facts.

The facts are that we have a lower suicide rate than several other developed countries, including Japan which has virtually eliminated private ownership of firearms. Again, guns do not cause suicide. This isn't me listening to the NRA, that's me learning about the issues.

I am not anti gun.

Unless someone has received routine mental healthcare that in no way makes them any more likely to commit suicide, homicide, nor any other act of violence.

 

[Ed Ames]

But the statistics relating to handgun suicides in the US rank high-the numbers don't lie.

All they show is that the majority of people who successfully commit suicide are rational people who are able to choose the most effective means. If anything, that raises questions about the ethics of suicide prevention as a valid place to spend public health dollars. If people were trying to kill themselves by forcing tadpoles into their resperatory tract or something equally crazy you could argue that maybe we should put a stop to it, but guns? That's an utterly sane choice.

This nation was founded on the ideal that people have a right to 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' In other words, the idea that our lives are our own, and we have a right to make our own choices, in pursuit of what we think will make us happy. There is nothing more un-american than trying to force your ideas of how somone should live onto another person.

 

[Red Wind]

Yes, but the main population centers require registration. So as a percentage of the population it is becoming quite large. So in essence you are wrong.

What main population centers require gun registration? Name them. That is flat out wrong. Only a handful of states require gun registration.

http://smartgunlaws.org/registration-of-firearms-policy-summary/

States that Require Registration of All Firearms
District of Columbia
Hawaii

States that Require Registration of Handguns
New York

States that Require New Residents to Report Their Firearms
California
Maryland (handguns and assault weapons)

States that Require Registration of Pre-Ban Assault Weapons or 50 Caliber Rifles
California (assault weapons and 50 caliber rifles)
Connecticut (assault weapons and large capacity magazines)
Hawaii (assault pistols)
Maryland (assault pistols)
New Jersey (assault weapons)
New York (assault weapons)

 

[Sam Cade]

. If people were trying to kill themselves by forcing tadpoles into their respiratory tract or something equally crazy you could argue that maybe we should put a stop to it, but guns? That's an utterly sane choice.

You Sir, have utterly slain me with laughter.

 

[leadcounsel]

We have slowly eroded the eligibility of the 2nd Amendment.

We exclude types of guns, even those no logically more dangerous than their legal counterparts. For instance, short shotguns, long handguns, short rifles, rifles with different cosmetics, magazine capacity, etc.

We exclude convicted felons, even those white collar criminals who committed any violent crime whatsoever.

We exclude people convicted of MISDEMEANOR domestic violence, which doesn't really require any violence... could be a shouting match or stalking (such as waiting outside someone's work place to watch them).

We exclude people ALLEGED to have done something, which requires a temporary restraining order by a domestic partner or family member... while they await their opportunity to PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE!

And there are many many more...

Many states require you PROVE you are innocent of all of these prohibitions before you can purchase/own a gun.

We gun owners must put a stop to the nonsense because we've given too much ground with all of these restrictions.

 

[JRH6856]

Yes, but the main population centers require registration. So as a percentage of the population it is becoming quite large. So in essence you are wrong.

Really? Percentage of population measures people, not guns. Care to provide an accurate count of the number of unregistered guns in the USA vs. the number of registered guns?

Don't try because you can't. Since there is no way to make an accurate count of unregistered guns, and the estimates I have seen are all over the place.

 

[vamo]

Quote:
Yes, but the main population centers require registration. So as a percentage of the population it is becoming quite large. So in essence you are wrong.
What main population centers require gun registration? Name them. That is flat out wrong. Only a handful of states require gun registration.

http://smartgunlaws.org/registration...olicy-summary/

Quote:
States that Require Registration of All Firearms
District of Columbia
Hawaii

States that Require Registration of Handguns
New York

States that Require New Residents to Report Their Firearms
California
Maryland (handguns and assault weapons)

States that Require Registration of Pre-Ban Assault Weapons or 50 Caliber Rifles
California (assault weapons and 50 caliber rifles)
Connecticut (assault weapons and large capacity magazines)
Hawaii (assault pistols)
Maryland (assault pistols)
New Jersey (assault weapons)
New York (assault weapons)

You realize those states represent roughly a quarter of the US population? Hardly just a handful of citizens have to live under some sort of registration. Though people do get the impression that registration is the rule rather than the exception since most shows/movies take place in NY or cali (DC is probably top 5).

EDIT: I'm not for registration by any means its just inaccurate to think of NY and CALI as just 2 fringe states when they contain such a disproportionate amount of people compared to the "avg" state.

 

[Oceanbob]

I thought this was good.....

 

[justice06rr]

I have an idea... Ban all crazy People!

I concur with Ugaarguy on the statement:

No, mental health is the issue, not gun ownership. You could take away every firearm in this country and you'd do little to the suicide rate. Again, see Japan. ".

I have worked closely with some disturbed teenagers doing volunteer work (and also at the hospital I work in). Many of them attempt harming themselves using a common stake knife or bread knife. We've also had patients who jumped off buildings to commit suicide. These minors have no access to guns (usually) but they will always find other ways to harm themselves or others.

Again, its not the tool but the person. Taking away guns or one's right to own them will not stop crime/homicide/suicide.

 

[CLP]

I'd like to point a few things out in this thread.

The mentally ill by and large are not violent. This includes those who hear voices, i.e. are diagnosed with schizophrenia and those diagnosed with bipolar. The mentally ill, in fact, are more likely to be victims of crime than the purveyors of it.

Psychiatrists do not diagnose people with "psychopathy" nor with "sociopathy" although the media, politicians and average individuals often do.

Whenever there is a shooting like this people are very quick to jump on the "Let's take the guns away from the crazies!" And "Loonies belong in the looney bin!" bandwagon, but the reality is that the pathology of someone who actually takes part in a mass murder is far darker than modern psychiatry is prepared to confront.

I, for one, am not prepared to start gun-grabbing based on the hysterical assertions of people using tragedy to justify their own pre-existing agenda.

"Psychiatrists do not diagnose people with "psychopathy" nor with "sociopathy" although the media, politicians and average individuals often do."

Psychiatrists do in fact diagnose people with "sociopathy". Those people are sociopaths. The terms are synonymous with Antisocial Personality Disorder.

 

[CLP]

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.

It should also be noted that each category of weapon, bats/hammers and bladed weapons/swords are each responsible for more fatalities annually than from all rifles/long arms, included the evil military assault rifle...

 

[CLP]

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.

This is really the nitty gritty...
"When ADJUDICATED mentally defective..."
Going before a probate judge in the setting of a psychiatric hospitalization almost always ends up with an order for the continuation of treatment, outpatient commitment (nurse comes to your house and gives you a shot), or transfer to state psych hospital for longer stays. I've never seen anyone wrongly adjudicated- these are sick people we're talking about. A layperson can make the distinction. Anything short of that formal process does not prohibit someone from owning firearms. And even though some tragedies may occur, I also agree that the line in the sand should be drawn in such a way to err on the side of liberty.

 

[jerkface11]

Aren't most violent crimes committed by people without mental health problems?

 

[CLP]

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.

"Homosexuality is still treated as a disease..."
That's incorrect. The distress caused by the conflict of refusing to accept one's orientation is the issue. I.e. Gay guy who wants to be straight becomes depressed and anxious because no matter what he does he's still gay. Needs a good quality therapist is all in most cases.

"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."
Another incorrect statement- I'm seriously not trying to be troublesome. But in reality it's issues with insurance companies forcing the hands of physicians to discharge people who are not completely stable from a psychiatric perspective. There's also a persistent shortage of beds. I typically house patients in the ED for up to 48 hours before I can get them placed in a bed. They receive minimal psychiatric care during that interval.

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.
I agree that the country is on a road to a dystopian nanny state, but that's not exactly what's happening. We "strip" 2A rights from people who are not only severely mentally ill people but have also been deemed so by a judge, typically because of noncompliance or being refractory to treatment, leading to multiple hospitalizations.

"Not only does it make us safer because mentally ill people can be a hazard..."
People in the general population are more hazardous than severely mentally ill patients. That's just a fact.