Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by 45223, Mar 31, 2015.
Jmr....with freedom comes risk. Bad stuff happens.
Exactly. We cannot live in an entirely risk free world with padding on all sharp objects and speed bumps on all roads. It's not realistic or practical or even enjoyable.
If someone is so dangerous or insane they shouldn't own guns, then I question why they are not institutionalized.
Denying this dangerous person a gun does little to protect society. They can simply get into a car and drive head-on into you on the highway. Or if they have nearly ANY job engaging the public they could kill by poisoning food, crashing vehicles, setting arson fires, and an endless list of nefarious things. Heck, they can even steal a gun if they really wanted one, just like Sandy Hook. People can escape detection, like the German airliner crash demonstrates this point.
This is yet another incremental encroachment and is nonsense.
Because some of you all fine conservative folks didn't want to pay for such institutionalization, is one reason- because, you know… taxes.
So now they're out in the wild, because some of us fine liberal folks didn't think it would be constitutional to euthanize them, which was presumably the alternative. And these people are being cared for by their families, who are likely struggling to do so. More often than not, these people present much more of a threat to themselves than others. Given that suicide attempts by firearm tend to be much more successful than other methods, it was determined that there was a pretty compelling governmental interest in doing something to regulate the RKBA as far as these certain people are concerned. There is due process involved. There is a mechanism to restore the right. It's certainly far less burdensome a restriction of the 2A than 'institutionalizing them' would be a burden on their 8th Amendment rights.
So, you know, there are trade-offs, sometimes between fundamental, enumerated rights even, because this democratic, constitutional republic stuff born of enlightenment thinking can be complicated and messy.
LemmyCaution has it right.
There are very few mental institutions left. Ronald Reagan saw no reason to fund mental institutions and most were closed.
BTW: Every time the subject of mental cases and guns come up on a gun board someone throws in some awful stuff that happened to some veteran somewhere in the US. Details are often lacking and further research usually traces the rumor/distortion/outright lie back to some less than stellar source.
What is so special about veterans? i'm an 80 percent disabled veteran who spent a career in the US Army. i'm also a veterans advocate. My healthcare comes from the VA. Yep, some of the veterans i know are crazier than loons and i don't want them anywhere near guns.
The NICS Improvement Act of 2007 was passed with wide bi-partisan support in congress. It came about because an "adjudicated" mental case at VA Tech legally obtained a gun, murdered 32 people and wounded 17 others. There are safeguards and appeals built into that act.
You can talk all you want about the "dangers of a free society" where dangerous mental cases are free to prey on law abiding folks. The failure to support existing state and federal legislation preventing the acquisition of guns by "adjudicated" mental cases could lead to a crime or series of crimes so hideous that congress passes some serious gun control.
Would ya'll consider a functioning PTSD patient a mental illness even if he never has had any issues related to PTSD
Most of the guys i know who have PTSD are functioning members of society; they have families, homes and careers. You would not know most of them have PTSD.
Some guys with PTSD have a much rougher time than others. Some PTSD patients have other mental problems. Booze and dope exacerbate the problem: Case in point; the perp who murdered Chris Kyle.
Being shy in crowds or around pretty women is a social disorder, it is not a mental illness. Being a grumpy old man is not a mental illness, it is a behavioral problem.
It is one thing to be suspicious of the neighborhood punk, that is not mental illness, but when you believe your phone is tapped or that everyone is out to get you, your perception of reality is distorted and that distortion could possibly be from an illness. The government has the authority to limit your freedoms and deny your access to firearms in those instances. They cannot take away your "right".
If the illness is healed -permanently- the access is restored.
Yes, in fact, I would.
But that completely ignores the fact that the GCA of 1968 DOES NOT PROHIBIT PEOPLE WITH MENTAL ILLNESS FROM POSSESSING FIREARMS.
The relevant standard is "adjudicated mentally defective," which is an entirely different thing from 'mentally ill.'
One must be adjudicated mentally defective. This means:
1: An adversarial hearing before a judge according to constitutional procedures designed to offer due process. If you do not believe such a thing exists, you should not be worrying about whether existing legislation abrogates your rights. You should be out in the streets leading the 2nd American Revolution. But you are not, ergo…
2: Mentally defective does not mean 'a little bit sad,' or even an order of magnitude more psychological troubles than that. It means that one is unable to care for oneself, and one presents a danger to oneself (most likely) or others. This is not a light or casual accusation to make, and despite what certain media parties who have read Hofstadter and taken it as a blueprint, rather than a cautionary tale have told you, is not lightly taken by the judiciary, most of whom are actually firmly in the conservative camp.
Make no mistake -- the "mental illness" issue is the Achilles' Heel of gun rights. Yes, the way things stand now, such a "mental illness" must be adjudicated in an adversarial proceeding in order to be disqualifying. But we can see the handwriting on the wall. The definition of "mental illness" can easily (in terms of politics) be broadened so that a mere diagnosis would be enough to be disqualifying. Then, the presence of anyone so diagnosed, in a household, could be made to disqualify all the members of that household from possessing a gun. Soon, you could have the majority of the country's population ineligible to have a gun. Never mind that lip service could still be paid to the Second Amendment; in practical terms, it would be a nullity.
Nobody who cared about ever owning a gun would voluntarily see a psychiatrist or a counsellor. The country's mental health would go downhill along with gun ownership.
Sounds like Andrea Yates, the lady who drowned her kids in Texas.
"Mental illness" was most certainly present in the 18th century when the Second Amendment was adopted but the Framers made no mention of it, not even when it came to voting. Was it just assumed that the "insane," or "lunatical," or "mad," (all in the parlance of the day), would be barred the possession of firearms? Ditto for the right to vote or to exercise free speech: mental competency is not a prerequisite.
Methinks the Framers assumed "common sense" would prevail with reference to these issues both then and now, and that specific mention of them was unnecessary. If only they knew.
repeat post delete
I don't think that was the intention but I am positive that the opportunity to use it as one will undoubtably be fully exploited by those wish to stip everone of their 2nd amendment rights if people don't wake up and see this as another snake oil cure for a problem that has afflicted humanity for years.
I am always way more than a little sceptical when certain people ploclaim they have all of a sudden figured out the ultimate solution to problems that have been either very complicated to solve or unsolvable since humanities conception.
Watching the evening news night after night, you have to wonder .... if most folks don`t have some kind of mental illness.
You have to think of the antis as an opportunistic infection. They will use every possible avenue to try to advance their agenda. When they fail to introduce new laws, they fall back on reinterpreting old laws. So they will expand the DSM book to create all kinds of mental disorders, and use that to proclaim everybody as mentally ill.
This is a slippery slope we must be careful on. A "phobia" is classified as an anxiety disorder, which is a type of mental disorder. With the leftist habit of labeling anyone who has a negative opinion of homosexuality a "homophobe", it's not difficult to see where this might lead. It could easily get VERY out of hand, VERY quickly.
IMHO, the biggest mental illness this nation faces is the idea that we can be free, yet live without fear, danger or risk.
Yep...she was one of many. There was a woman that tried to drive her car into the surf with her kids to commit murder/sewercide. Every once in awhile on the news here we hear a report where a mother either killed or tried to kill her toddler aged children. Men do it too on occasion but rarely. But I can't remember when there was a mass murder via shooting or bombing on some campus or in some mall or office where a woman was the sole operative. Just a curious footnote to the mental illness subject and how it manifests itself across genders.
As previously noted you have to be adjudicated incompetent in a hearing for the mental thing to kick in as far as gun rights go.... (keep an eye on that since it's hardly a "fixed in stone" proposition...). And yes, whatever the master book is for psych problems, you can bet there will be attempts on-going to change the various definitions involved when an advocacy group (think anti-gun orgs...) has an axe to grind.
On the street, however, the standard is entirely different. For any officer who is dealing with an idividual causing problems (note, I very carefully didn't say lawbreaker since a simple arrest deals with that situation..) who may or may not have "mental problems" the standard is simply "Does this individual present a threat to him/herself or others?" If that's the case you've met the most basic requirement to take them into custody for a mental evaluation (in my state, Florida, the appropriate statute is the Baker Act). Now, if only it actually worked properly the receiving facility would do a thorough evaluation to see if there's really cause for concern and action. All too often it's the old soft shoe and your problem child is back out on the street and moving back to where they're comfortable.
Are there folks who shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm -absolutely. The problem for all of us is in deciding and actually carrying out a reasonable standard (wars have been fought over lesser problems...). As a personal observation the number of jailhouse or prison bound folks that I dealt with in my career as a cop that had serious mental problems was pretty substantial. That's a poor reflection on all of us....
Not most, but many, according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), who estimates a solid 25% of the population is mentally ill. See http://www.cdc.gov/mentalhealthsurveillance/
At the end of the day, sometimes I think their numbers are conservative.
If you have been convicted of committing a crime of violence, depending on the severity, your 2a rights could be forfeit.
If you show yourself to be a danger to yourself, and/or to others, you can be forcibly admitted, and your 2a rights could be forfeit.
End of story. I don't see the discussion here. There are already penalties on the books for people who commit violent acts, and further working to preemptively remove someones rights without due process for any reasoning is wrong and misguided.
We have this discussion from time to time, and if you research the facts, mental illnesses, even serious ones such as schizophrenia, does not in itself make an individual statistically more dangerous than a "sane" person.
I know a study that was done about Houston in the mid-seventies that involved several universities and their applicable disciplines. The study was being conducted to find out why there were so many road rage assaults on Houston freeways. Engineering departments...weather departments and medical school universities were involved in the extensive TXDOT study. The roads and their designs were fine...the weather did not play an influence etc. the only thing that could be determined in the boom and bust economy of an oil town was that the stress caused
1% of the drivers to be looking to harm someone up to and including homicide and 3% could very easily be tripped into doing it. That 25% figure mentioned surprises me...I'd heard it was 7% but that might be a different level of mental illness. Reagan did foul up the mental health hospital system and the newly "invented" psych meds companies didn't help. I've known three times in my 60 years three normally sane men with good jobs and respected members of their community suddenly go on a murderous rampage killing their spouse then realizing what they had just done...kill themselves. I've known one woman that plunged a kitchen knife into her husband's back. Only knew of her didn't know her. Last I heard they were still married if the forty years since it happened old age didn't get them. Oh...yeah I forgot...our across the street neighbor growing up when I was a kid shot her husband. They also remained married. He walked around with one of those arm out to the side shoulder casts for awhile. Guy probably knocked back a quarter a million dollars income a year in today's dollars. These were people who had substantial incomes and educations so they weren't bar brawlers. The very common thing I've seen is not mental illness but alcohol. But that's another issue.
Lately, and by lately I mean in the last 10-15 years, it seems that everything is an illness or disorder. Depression? Take these 20 pills. Anxiety? Another 5 pills. Not everything has a pill fix. I might be a little jaded since my local VA is trying to drown me in Rx scripts, but I digress.
By my personal definition, mental illness is anything going on in your head that makes you a danger to self or others, either through violence or difficulty managing your own affairs. Is PTSD an example using my definition? Not really. PTSD has different symptoms and triggers. Very small percentage are violent cases. Each mental illness has such a wide range of severity, I do not believe that anyone's medical file showing X mental illness should be treated the same. For example if you had a stack of files of autism, one turns violent, the rest of the people diagnosed with autism should lose their gun rights or other freedoms on the basis of public safety.
A few years ago there was a workplace shooting with fatalities in my metro area. My employer's security director held a meeting about such events and what we should do if someone comes into the bldg. shooting. He wound people up pretty well; I attended the meeting and didn't say or do anything.
Someone apparently thought I had made a face or something (so I was told) and I was investigated by said security man and a senior exec. I did nothing wrong. They interviewed my co-workers wanting to know if I was violent. They said no.
So yes a slippery slope. I was livid and I still am quite peeved by this matter. They moved me to another location in the company because of this.
BTW the security man was canned for an unrelated matter, and the exec was laid off when they closed the out of state office where he worked.
My point is I did nothing wrong. I did nothing at all, and yet my job was on the line because someone THOUGHT I was a threat. There was no probable cause.
Just look to big pharma as the reason why there is such a push to prescribe psych-tropic drugs. It's a multi-billion dollar income for them and their advertisement and promotion budgets sum up to over a billion dollars a year. Then throw in general practitioners being essentially employees of insurance companies who don't want to pay for psychiatric help and it's pills...pills...and more pills. General practitioners are prescribing these meds with no more of a knowledge of what they will do or how they will interact than what a sizzling hot pharmacy salesperson tells them or the brochure says. But...the "patient" is diagnosed as depressed. While that may not be an issue now...as others have mentioned it could become an issue later under an administration that is not blocked by a conservative Congress or a moderate SCOTUS.
The GCA was written in 1968 when psych medicine and understanding was even more poorly understood than it is now. I also think that back then laws were written in more of an absolute than an interpretive format. Plus...as mentioned by others...psych hospitals had not been shut down as they were under Pres. Reagan. Psychiatry when the law was written was not to far removed in years from glorified witchcraft. Now...doctors can look into the very working of the brain and do chemical and DNA analysis that the 68' generation doctors had no concept of. Anyway...the Hangries of low blood sugar can make some people explode. But like I said...anyway.
Some liberals like to leave the 2nd amendment out of the BOR. Some RKBA types like to ignore the other 9.
I see it more as an 'all or nothing' situation.
You have the right to freedom of speech, movement, assembly, etc. If you are crazy enough to be a danger to yourself and others, a judge can have you civilly committed, effectively shutting down your free speech, freedom of assembly, etc.
I say if you are crazy enough to be civilly committed (and have some of your rights shut off) then you are crazy enough to have your rights to guns shut off.
However, unless your crazy is bad enough that the courts FORCE you into the loony bin, then I don't think your mental issues should legally mean you can't own guns. This doesn't mean that gun ownership and severe depression are a good mix, but it is still a LEGAL mix.
Separate names with a comma.