Should the second amendment apply to the mentally ill?

[rd_zzyzx]

I would beg to differ on this one. I spent my first few years in the Army as a citizen of Thailand before finally earning my US Citizenship. I think most folks would be surprised at the number of soldiers, sailors and airmen that are non citizens.

I think many missed the point, or maybe I missed it entirely and took it to mean:

Voting is more important and has more repercussions than any other right we have. It is the "top" right, the "ubber" right, it is what makes us sovereign. Therefore, if you are not qualified for a lesser right, such as the 2nd Amendment, then you should not qualify for the right to vote.

Now, don't take my analogy too far, because all of the rights are intertwined to support the others, and make a foundation for which people can free. There is no freedom without the ability to defend it. There is no defense against kingdoms unless we can peacefully choose our leaders.

So, if you are allowed to vote you should be allowed to have a firearm isn't that crazy to me after all. It makes sense.

 

[buck460XVR]

I don't know about others, but if I knew someone that had voices in their head telling them to kill everyone around them, I would not be the one to hand them a gun. Just sayin'.

 

[rd_zzyzx]

On the vote thing, yet another way to say it is this:
The right to vote and the right to keep and bear arms are complete equals (note a different analogy here), and it is just as much a civil rights violation to deny someone the vote as it is to deny someone to keep and bear arms. It is just as much a civil rights violation to limit or interfere or intimidate someone from voting as it is to interfere with someone's ability to acquire and keep firearms.

So, if someone is deemed unfit to keep and bear arms, they are also unfit to vote, and visa versa.

This analogy also makes sense to me. But, they are analogies, attempts at describing something in a way to make connections.

 

[DeepSouth]

On the side note

I'd just like to point out that the "right to vote" is, well, not a right. As recently as 2000 in th Bush VS Gore supreme court ruling they said "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States,” they cited McPherson v. Blacker which states that a state’s ability to decide how to appoint electors is plenary.

While their are amendments protecting voters from discrimination, their is not an amendment granting a right to vote to everyone, ask a couple hundred years worth of women and blacks if they had a "right to vote"

It simply doesn't exist, but almost everyone agrees it is implied in our founding documents.

Either way, my point is simply comparing the right to bear arms and the right to vote isn't a good comparison simply because historicaly it has been ruled (and denied to people) that their is no "right to vote"

 

[Vern Humphrey]

That is exactly the point we are making -- if the government can deny the right to bear arms without due process, it can deny them the right to vote in the same way.

Do you see people running around and saying people with PTSD should be denied the right to vote?

 

[DeepSouth]

Oh, well, yeah I do see that point.

I just woke up (night shift) maybe my understanding wasn't yet awake when I read the last few posts.

Sorry, continue on.

 

[silicosys4]

I don't know about others, but if I knew someone that had voices in their head telling them to kill everyone around them, I would not be the one to hand them a gun. Just sayin'.

For sure, definitely not. In fact, when my brother started showing symptoms, my father and I made the decision early on to stuff every dang gun in the house into my safe until we figured out what the heck was going on
. We kept them all there until he was out of the house, even after he was diagnosed and medicated, completely back to normal.
Try fitting 30+ long guns and 50+ pistols into a 25 gun safe, lol...Lets just say I don't have many guns without at least minor safe dings anymore.
Kind of sad, we used to go shooting together pretty regularly. My brother was never a huge firearms fan like I am, but now he has no interest in them, which I can respect.

But anyways, many assume
1. That every person with a serious mental illness experiencing hallucinations or "reality breaks" are subject to violent influences from their hallucinations. They are not.
2. That every person with a serious mental illness is powerless to ignore those voices or hallucinations, or to separate them from reality. They are not. Hearing voices and hallucinations as a mentally ill person does not necessarily mean you don't know they are voices and hallucinations and are unable to acknowledge them as unreal and ignore them to the greater extent.

However, if the person is hearing voices because they do not have access to affordable medication that they are willing to take and could enable them to live a completely normal life devoid of voices, shouldn't the emphasis be on making such medications available instead of restricting their rights? Particularly when there are plenty of options available to a person willing to commit heinous crimes apart from firearms?

Exactly how many seriously deranged people who hear voices from a "higher power" telling them to kill are going to give up their crusade "commanded from god" for lack of a legally acquired gun?

None, or close to it.
That mindset doesn't even work on "sane" criminals, who are arguably much less motivated.

If you are deranged and you believe with all your soul that god wants you to kill people and is going to torture your brain until you do, you are probably going to do it one way or the other.

Restricting the rights of a very large (millions) group of people because of the POTENTIAL actions of a small minority...That doesn't sound right.

 

[IWAC]

Deleted

 

[buck460XVR]

Restricting the rights of a very large (millions) group of people because of the POTENTIAL actions of a small minority...That doesn't sound right.

That has been the battle cry of gun owners since the inception of gun control and I totally agree. I also agree that giving people help if it is available and viable is much better than a blanket restriction of their rights. But as you have shown us, in your brother's example, sometimes, for the good of the individual and those around them, some sort of restriction is the intelligent move until another working solution can be found. In several of the highly publicized mass shootings, the shooter was known/thought to have mental heath issues, and either a therapist, social worker or a family member sought some sort of help for that individual and were denied. Again, the problem lies in the fine line in what constitutes a real threat when it comes to mental illness and it's diagnosis. Because of that fine line, there will always be some, just on either side of that fine line, that will be misdiagnosed or missed. What most folks are arguing, when it comes to mental health and the possession of firearms, is to what side of that fine line we want our margin of error to be.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

It has been estimated that more than 20% of the population has "mental issues." That works out to over 60,000,000 people. There haven't been more than 60 mass shootings in a decade -- so the dangerous people are literally one in a million.

 

[rogerjames]

It has been estimated that more than 20% of the population has "mental issues." That works out to over 60,000,000 people. There haven't been more than 60 mass shootings in a decade -- so the dangerous people are literally one in a million.

I think we've already established that "mental issues" has a broad brush, and I think we all realize that there is a wide divide between depression and schizophrenia.

Vern, would you let a known schizophrenic babysit your grandchild?

The issue of access and coverage for mental health medications is just the beginning. Assuming you now have access and appropriate medications, you are now asking people with "mental health" issues to take their medications "as prescribed".

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Vern, would you let a known schizophrenic babysit your grandchild?

Would you allow a person who has been accused of a crime, but never convicted, be deprived of his rights?

 

[rogerjames]

Would you allow a person who has been accused of a crime, but never convicted, be deprived of his rights?

If you answer my question, ill answer yours

 

[Vern Humphrey]

From http://www.schizophrenic.com/articles/schizophrenia/are-schizophrenics-dangerous

Are Schizophrenics Dangerous?​

There is a common misperception, perpetuated by the popular media, that schizophrenics are dangerous and prone to violence. It is rare to see an article about a dangerous criminal contemplating an insanity defense that does not mention either schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. But in reality, most people diagnosed with schizophrenia are not violent or a danger to other people. And although we hear about violent schizophrenics in the news, the vast majority of violent crimes are not committed by people with schizophrenia. The hype surrounding violence related to schizophrenia is increased precisely because it is unusual, making for a more interesting news item.

Although violence among schizophrenics is rare, some with the disorder have a greater risk of acting violently than others, such those who experience delusions of persecution or those who have a substance abuse problem. It is rare for society at large to be in danger from a schizophrenic who becomes violent--the behavior is usually directed at family members within the home. And most often, schizophrenics pose the greatest threat to themselves--there is a 4% lifetime risk of suicide in people with schizophrenia.

So, while it is true that certain symptoms of schizophrenia may lead to violent behavior, the overall risk of violence among schizophrenics is small. As a group, people with schizophrenia do not present a significant risk to other people and it is incorrect to assume that they are inherently dangerous.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

From WebMD
http://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/guide/mental-health-schizophrenia?page=5

Are People With Schizophrenia Dangerous?​

Popular books and movies often depict people with schizophrenia and other mental illnesses as dangerous and violent. This is usually not true. Most people with schizophrenia are not violent. More typically, they prefer to withdraw and be left alone. In some cases, however, people with mental illness may engage in dangerous or violent behaviors that are generally a result of their psychosis and the resulting fear from feelings of being threatened in some way by their surroundings.

On the other hand, people with schizophrenia can be a danger to themselves. Suicide is the number one cause of premature death among people with schizophrenia.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

If you answer my question, ill answer yours

See my two answers above.

A person with schizophrenia is not inherently dangerous. If the person is functional -- that is can go about the business of daily living -- they can do most jobs, including baby sitting.

On the other hand, I would NOT let a pedophile babysit my grandchildren -- and there is very little propensity for violence among pedophiles.

 

[rogerjames]

See my two answers above.



A person with schizophrenia is not inherently dangerous. If the person is functional -- that is can go about the business of daily living -- they can do most jobs, including baby sitting.



On the other hand, I would NOT let a pedophile babysit my grandchildren -- and there is very little propensity for violence among pedophiles.

So your on record saying a known schizophrenic is a good babysitting option for you?

 

[Warp]

So [you're] on record saying a known schizophrenic is a good babysitting option for you?

What specific person are you asking about?

Are YOU going on record saying that every non-schizophrenic is a good babysitting option?

This whole babysitting thing seems off topic, irrelevant, and silly.

 

[rogerjames]

What specific person are you asking about?

Are YOU going on record saying that every non-schizophrenic is a good babysitting option?

This whole babysitting thing seems off topic, irrelevant, and silly.

Silly, really? I'm going on record saying no schizophrenic will have any access to my family or firearms, period.

Apparently you disagree. Put your money where your mouth is

 

[Warp]

Silly, really? I'm going on record saying no schizophrenic will have any access to my family or firearms, period.

Apparently you disagree. Put your money where your mouth is

We are not talking about granting access to our grandchildren or our personal firearms to somebody else.

This whole thing, especially the personal challenges to other people that you are making, are silly, irrelevant, off topic, and IMO low-road.

Would you let my great uncle babysit your grandchild? What about my mother? WHO CARES? You don't know either of those people and are thus in no position to make that call, same as we don't know this hypothetical person you are asking about, so we are in no position to make that call.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

So your on record saying a known schizophrenic is a good babysitting option for you?

When you're reduced to putting words in other people's mouths, you've lost the argument.

 

[rogerjames]

When you're reduced to putting words in other people's mouths, you've lost the argument.

I didn't put any words in anyone's mouth. I asked a question that apparently you are not comfortable answering .

 

[silicosys4]

I didn't put any words in anyone's mouth. I asked a question that apparently you are not comfortable answering .

How about this: I would rather let my brother babysit my family than you, anyone else on this board, or 99.99% of the U.S. population in general who are not diagnosed with a mental illness.
I know him, I know his medical history and his access to the proper medication and I trust him. I do not know you, or 99.99% of the population and I do not trust someone I don't know. You or anyone else being "normal" does not statistically reduce the likelihood of you or any other "sane" person not abusing my child.

There are frequently instances in the media of children who are abused by babysitters who are NOT schizophrenic.

As for access to your family... If you are not comfortable with one neighbor who was diagnosed at one time as a schizophrenic, is medicated, has a great job, a happy family and a nice house, and no history of crime.... Would you feel more comfortable with your other neighbor, who has a history of seducing other men's wives, has been divorced multiple times, and loves to spout racist tirades, watch over your family while you are gone? After all, no laws broken and no mental illnesses there...just a scumbag.

The honest truth is that you come in contact with "mentally ill" people on a regular basis if you have any significant regular interaction in society and do not know it because, for all intents and purposes, they are completely normal people.

Do you like to drink? Like to get inebriated once in a while? If you do you are statistically more of a threat to yourself and others than a schizophrenic.

 

[rogerjames]

How about this: I would rather let my brother babysit my family than you, anyone else on this board, or 99.99% of the U.S. population in general who are not diagnosed with a mental illness.
I know him, I know his medical history and his access to the proper medication and I trust him. I do not know you, or 99.99% of the population and I do not trust someone I don't know. You or anyone else being "normal" does not statistically reduce the likelihood of you or any other "sane" person not abusing my child.

There are frequently instances in the media of children who are abused by babysitters who are NOT schizophrenic.

The honest truth is that you come in contact with "mentally ill" people on a regular basis if you have any significant regular interaction in society and do not know it because, for all intents and purposes, they are completely normal people.

Good for you and your brother. There's a reason it's called "mental" illness. The reality for many people is that we are are relying on people with "mental" illness to take their medications as prescribed. Many do not have family or others around to make sure that happens. Right... that will work out well.

 

[silicosys4]

Good for you and your brother. There's a reason it's called "mental" illness. The reality for many people is that we are are relying on people with "mental" illness to take their medications as prescribed. Right... that will work out well.

For the most part it does work out well. Mentally ill people are not significantly more likely to commit crimes specifically because of their illness than any mentally healthy individual, particularly those who are properly medicated. The statistics support that. Your responses, while probably prudent for you, are purely emotional and are not supported by data.

I hope you are not relying on the behavior of anyone out there to keep you safe. That's ultimately your responsibility. It is also your responsibility to understand that in a free society, there is some small level of risk involved.