Guns, licenses, CCWs...and mental illness

I would like your opinion on gun ownership and mental illness. I have a distant relative who is functional but mentally ill. The thought of his owning a gun is not a happy feeling. How far should we restrict the mentally ill? How to define mental illness, since types and variations are so broad it's indefinable. What about someone on meds for depression who appears ro be in control but has periods when he's anything but? How can one possibly regulate or qualify mental illness in terms of gun ownership...yet insure true crazies can mever get their hands on a trigger?

Most people do not want their loved ones locked up for long term care, and the government can not afford to do that either due to the will of the people to not pay higher taxes. Also, no one wants their health care premiums increased.

Follow the lack of money and you will see why half of the people of this country that do not excercise their freedom and right to own guns to protect themselves will gladly vote their freedoms away for the one thousandth of one percent of the people who may be a threat to their safety. The other half of the country that know how to use guns want their rights not infringed, but due to gun control their rights are infringed and they can not protect themselves properly.

There always seems to be at least half of the country that dislikes something that the other half of the population enjoys, weather it if smoking pot, gay rights, same sex marriage, etc. Every issue can cause a one thousandth of one percent social problem that leads to a deadly threat to others but they let those issues become legal. The gays, potheads, abortion rights activist...didn't give in and neither will gun owners.

There needs to be more money for mental health care because living in this country is becoming more confusing. Fixing the one thousandth of one percent issues seems to be too expensive, but eroding the rights and freedoms of 99.99 percent of the population is more expensive in my opinion. Religion education has deterioted for many years and needs to be beefed up, since that was where most mental health care was provided.

Topshot said:

I would like your opinion on gun ownership and mental illness. I have a distant relative who is functional but mentally ill. The thought of his owning a gun is not a happy feeling. How far should we restrict the mentally ill? How to define mental illness, since types and variations are so broad it's indefinable. What about someone on meds for depression who appears ro be in control but has periods when he's anything but? How can one possibly regulate or qualify mental illness in terms of gun ownership...yet insure true crazies can mever get their hands on a trigger?

Click to expand...

All the above questions are based on the premise that it's possible to accurately predict a futurecrime based solely on your interpretation of the mental condition of a person. In my opinion, the question shouldn't be, "How can we keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill", but rather, "How can we reform and improve our mental healthcare system in this country".

1) You're focusing on a tool instead of the person. Guns are dangerous by nature and you can use them to harm people. You can also harm people with kitchen knives, gasoline(happy land massacre), a car, or any number of other things. If you're going to restrict a class of people from owning firearms, why not keep them from anything else they could potentially harm others with as well? Are they going to lose their driver's license? Their kitchen knives? Access to matches? It's more productive to focus on treating the individual than a futile attempt at removing all potentially harmful items from their possession.

2) The inalienable 2A right would be stripped before a crime was committed based on assumptions that a class of people are more dangerous than others. If you KNOW a person is going to harm themselves or others, you can report them and there's due process for having them committed to a mental health institution against their will. If a threat is imminent, that person shouldn't be on the streets and whether they have a gun or now is a secondary concern at best for the reasons outlined above.

If there's no specific, actionable, intelligence that the person is going to commit a crime it's wrong to arbitrarily strip them of their 2A rights for a hunch that they COULD commit a crime.

3) It makes the 2A arbitrary by a bureaucrat somewhere. "We need to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill"....okay... sounds good at a superficial level, but challenge those who say it to define EXACTLY who will have their 2A rights stripped. Manic depression? Depression? Autism? at what severity on the spectrum? Learning disorders? schizophrenia? ADHD? Insomnia? PTSD? And is it permanent or temporary?

If it's temporary, what is the process for reclaiming the lost 2A for these groups of people? How does one prove that they are no longer depressed? What happens if a Dr signs a note saying that person isn't depressed, they get their guns back, and then shoot someone/themselves? Is that Dr now liable? If so, why would any Dr sign a note saying someone is better?

4) Deciding on the groups above is a slippery slope to arbitrary 2A removal. The groups above must have been chosen because someone somewhere FELT that they have a disproportionately high chance of committing a futurecrime. What would happen if we compared the rate of black males 14-30 committing homicides to the general population? Suddenly because this group has a disproportionately high rate of violent crime, do we add them to the list of prohibited people in an attempt to stop futurecrimes?

No, that would be absurd and people would point out that outside perceptions of a group don't mean that any individual from that group WILL commit a crime. Essentially the banned groups are being punished for something they haven't done that other people assume they will.

5) Laws don't stop criminals by very definition of the term "criminal". If someone is so batsh!t that they're going to break laws against murder, assault, robbery...etc, then what do they care about gun possession laws? If you look at where most criminals get guns, it's not from a gun store. It's relatively easy to steal a gun/buy one on the black market. If someone is determined to harm others, a law prohibiting them from owning a gun isn't going to be an effective deterrent. Again, it's a failed premise focusing on one potentially harmful tool rather than the person.

6) It's impossible to identify and predict who is going to snap and try to harm others, we need to be ready to stop them if they try. We've had a number of shootings with some shooters having an extensive history of mental illness treatment, and others without any. We've also had people go on mass shootings for religious or philosophical reasons that could be argued as being sane. We can never fully predict who will try to harm others, but we CAN be ready to stop them when they pop up.

I view a CCW as a "violent threat extinguisher" that works in much the same way as fire extinguishers. If a small fire pops up somewhere and you have an extinguisher handy, you can quickly put out the fire before it does too much damage. Fire extinguishers don't prevent fires, but they reduce the effect of fires. A CCW acts in the same way. If a person attempts to harm an individual or group, someone with a CCW can stop them quickly before they are able to harm many people. It turns what could be a large-scale massacre into a small event with limited casualties. Banning guns is similar to banning fire extinguishers and telling everyone to just call the fire department and wait 10-15 minutes for them to show up in case of a fire. Of course there'd be much more damage from fire, because when it pops up it's given time to do more damage before it's stopped.

The good thing about liberalizing CCW is there are many more good people than bad people in society, and it is a solution that INCREASES our liberty rather than restricting it

7) There's 4 times as many dead bodies each year from suicides than from homicides, yet another reason for improved mental healthcare. Interestingly enough, mass shootings represent a small fraction of deaths by the mentally ill. ~40,000 people each year kill themselves. Only half of those, around 20,000 kill themselves with guns. Again, if we focus on the person rather than the tool, we can work towards stopping those 40,000 needless deaths each year(a number that dwarfs those killed in "mass-shootings" or even the ~10,000 in total homicides).

Now imagine if alcohol and drug problems are also considered "mental health problems". Suddenly, you've added 46,471 drug-induced deaths and 29,001 alcohol-induced deaths. With the 40,000 suicides, these are 115,000'ish deaths EVERY YEAR that are preventable with a better mental healthcare system. Even if you use the absurd criteria for "mass shooting" from here....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...15-274-days-294-mass-shootings-hundreds-dead/
...you're still sitting at only around 300 people/year dying from "mass shootings". So with 115,000>300, why is the president demanding more 2A infringments? I'll give you a hint, it's not about making society a better place, it's about power.

8) Removing rights based on mental health stigmatizes it and acts as a disincentive to seeking help. With the huge problem of over 100,000 preventable deaths every year associated with mental health problems, we want these people actively seeking help. The threat of losing their 2A rights is going to keep a lot of people from going to seek treatment. It's also going to keep third parties from reporting suspicious people, since the report may cause them to lose their rights. It's the opposite policy that should be in place.



So, there's some points I think answer your questions. When looking purely at numbers, our next steps as a nation should be crystal clear. We need to reform our mental healthcare system and remove the stigma attached to mental illness. Depression should be treated in much the same way as a sprained ankle. I'm interested in your responses and if you believe that despite everything I've laid out above, this country should move forward with 2A infringements for "mental illness". I'd like the opportunity to understand that perspective more if it's where you're coming from.

I work in a school that has a regional ED program for emotionally disturbed kids that get moved out of their home school because they're so bonkers that the home school can't handle them. It's routine to have kids attack students/adults/themselves with or without improvised weapons(our principal and a few other adults last year got slashed with scissors during one outburst from a kid). I've seen these kids regularly threaten to kill others and try to act on the threats. If they remain the same, would I want them picking up a gun? Nope. But in these cases, any criminal history they rack up may disqualify them. If not, any time they've been involuntarily admitted to a psych ward(a bunch of times for some of our kids) counts against them. And ultimately, having had experience behind a gun counter for 7 years to base this on, the gun salesman can always refuse to sell them a gun if they give them a fishy vibe. I've refused to sell a bunch of people guns from behind the counter because they were intoxicated, belligerent, or just bonkers. "But Rob, aren't you predicting futurecrime there?" Yup. But I'm doing it on an individual basis and basing it on evidence the person gives me at the time of sale. Often times we forward some of the crazier ones to the police.

I'm more interested in the OP's opinion since the OP seems to think it's OK for BHO to shove gun control down our throats since Republicans rarely push back.

Funny people worry about folks with mental issues owning or having access to a firearm, but don't think twice about letting them behind the wheel of a vehicle. Another tool that can cause harm and kill.

In almost every case of a 'rampage' mass shooting, they have occurred in ''gun free zones'' In there, lies my opinion.

Brychan said:

Funny people worry about folks with mental issues owning or having access to a firearm, but don't think twice about letting them behind the wheel of a vehicle. Another tool that can cause harm and kill.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

Not to mention the fact that Alcohol and Guns has killed more people than OCD and Guns.

Folks need to be very careful about offering up certain segments of the gun owning population as sacrificial lambs.

Cuzz once that low hanging fruit has been picked, the Left will ratchet their ladder up another rung so they can reach further up the tree.

Well, there is a problem. Gun rights are the same as the other God given or natural freedoms. And I would expect your rights to only be forfeited for reason.

So if you have a reason to believe this person is a danger in a free society, you might want to exercise your civic duty.

Topshot, Why gun rights? Is there a particular reason you are so concerned about 2a rights as opposed to the other natural and civil rights that could be abused by a mentally ill person?

Cool pictures BTW.

Is it the responsibility of society or the family? My daughter suffers from mental illness. She is an adult, and survives in ASI disability. Her life would be oh so much better if she had transportation. She has begged me to get her a car for her. I don't believe she has sufficient impulse control to handle the responsibility of driving, so I have not given in to her wishes.

Family plays as big apart as anything. Mental illness is hard to understand. The trend has been to put it all on the government, but that isn't the job of the government.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

dgapilot said:

Is it the responsibility of society or the family? My daughter suffers from mental illness. She is an adult, and survives in ASI disability. Her life would be oh so much better if she had transportation. She has begged me to get her a car for her. I don't believe she has sufficient impulse control to handle the responsibility of driving, so I have not given in to her wishes.

Family plays as big apart as anything. Mental illness is hard to understand. The trend has been to put it all on the government, but that isn't the job of the government.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

truth

dgapilot said:

Is it the responsibility of society or the family? My daughter suffers from mental illness. She is an adult, and survives in ASI disability. Her life would be oh so much better if she had transportation. She has begged me to get her a car for her. I don't believe she has sufficient impulse control to handle the responsibility of driving, so I have not given in to her wishes.

Family plays as big apart as anything. Mental illness is hard to understand. The trend has been to put it all on the government, but that isn't the job of the government.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Family is the first line of defense. Defense for the ill as well as the innocent victims of their actions.

iH8DemLibz said:

I'm more interested in the OP's opinion since the OP seems to think it's OK for BHO to shove gun control down our throats since Republicans rarely push back.

Click to expand...

Maybe the OP was edited from when you read it, but I saw no mention of BHO, gun control being shoved down our throats, or Republicans.

Topshot said:

I would like your opinion on gun ownership and mental illness. I have a distant relative who is functional but mentally ill. The thought of his owning a gun is not a happy feeling. How far should we restrict the mentally ill? How to define mental illness, since types and variations are so broad it's indefinable. What about someone on meds for depression who appears ro be in control but has periods when he's anything but? How can one possibly regulate or qualify mental illness in terms of gun ownership...yet insure true crazies can mever get their hands on a trigger?

Click to expand...

Very new member, very few posts. Very controversial start in the community. Questionable motives at this point.

Screw it, I'll bite.

Your answer is right here along with pointers to the correct Federal statutes that define specific mental health issues as disqualifying. Suck it up, buttercup. It has already been made into law.

https://www.atf.gov/file/83751/download

Question 11, F is the one that you need to look at, when reading the first link.

https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download

Another thing from the ATF. One of their newsletters.

https://www.atf.gov/file/56461/download

Topshot said:

I would like your opinion on gun ownership and mental illness. I have a distant relative who is functional but mentally ill. The thought of his owning a gun is not a happy feeling. How far should we restrict the mentally ill? How to define mental illness, since types and variations are so broad it's indefinable. What about someone on meds for depression who appears ro be in control but has periods when he's anything but? How can one possibly regulate or qualify mental illness in terms of gun ownership...yet insure true crazies can mever get their hands on a trigger?

Click to expand...

Please define what you mean by the terms:

mentally ill

true crazies

mterry said:

Maybe the OP was edited from when you read it, but I saw no mention of BHO, gun control being shoved down our throats, or Republicans.

Click to expand...

I was commenting on one of the OP's other posts.

There are only a handful. Read them.

The one I'm talking about is very insightful and has a direct bearing on this thread.

Also, there are those in the gun grabbing world that would like nothing more than to have the 2A community engage in a divide and conquer strategy. FUDDS against AR guys. High end collectors against budget C&R guys. Finely blued against manganese phosphate guys. Mag dumpers against precision shooter guys. Run against installed guys. Etc.

We must not fall for it.

.02


PS: And DA gets one of these.

If you want a law to solve it, the best one I can think of is to hold the health insurers liable in these cases. After hearing how the insurance companies are denying mental health care to those who need it, this would be the best stupid solution that would work. It's all about money.

no.. then everyone will be diagnosed mentally ill. thereby removing the liability of the HC provider.

DaemonAssassin said:

Very new member, very few posts. Very controversial start in the community. Questionable motives at this point.

Screw it, I'll bite.

Click to expand...

Based on other posts, she's a writer. As such, she could just enjoy some back and forth to get ideas on what to write about. At the very least, there's no harm in discussing the topic. Folks can tune in and get ideas of what they can say if this issue is brought up to them in their personal lives. It's good to get in to controversial topics for that reason, provided everyone engages in meaningful dialogue.

Thanks for a thoughtful question.

There is no easy or pat answer.

At issue is the trade off between security and liberty.

Anyone who "knows" the answer is IMO way too smart for me.

I've lived among folks cursed with mental illness. It's insidious. It's also dangerous from time to time...without access to or introduction of any kind of weapon or dangerous implement. Indeed, some implements are more lethal than others...

Like many other seemingly intractable subjects, our society struggles with confrontation of issues and of people. Mental illness is a big, slippery, Gordian knot.

I'm not sure that more laws will help. I'm not sure that more anything will help. Until and unless we are willing to acknowledge that we must as individuals and a society, embrace accountability and truth.

If the truth is Johnnie or Sally is batshit crazy, then we need to ensure they are identified as such and do everything we can to get them help AND KEEP THEM FROM BEING POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS...TO THEMSELVES OR OTHERS. Failure to participate in life in this manner will make increasingly persistent and intractable the struggle between security/safety and freedom/individual rights.

Strategy demands acknowledgement and full understanding of the problem. Reactive solutions won't resolve crazy folks with guns...it may stop them but that can NEVER be soon or quickly enough. Prevention will yield better results.

I don't know and haven't studied options there... I do concur that individual "rights" like HIPA are nNEVER going to be more important than the right not to be attacked and killed by some nut job with a gun or anything else. The medical and insurance communities must be involved in any solution set. Be assured any solution will be complex and highly political....

No easy button here.

No noob accusations either. Valid issue.