Dont they realize its a mental health issue

[AntiGun]

This!

The mental illness issue needs to be handled delicately which is something I believe our law makers collectively are incapable of doing. Even under the best circumstances with unbiased mental health professionals making objective evaluations of whether someone is fit for firearms ownership the process can in cases be very subjective. People will always slip through. Law makers would use the "nuclear option" to stop anyone even remotely associated with having any kind of illness "just to be sure" because its "for the children." With the way the antis are, the mental health angle will be used not to determine if someone is fit for firearms ownership, but rather for determining if there is anything in this persons history that could be used to strip them of their right to bear arms.

If the antis had it there way I think we would see the following:
Have you ever seen a psychologist? Right denied
Have you ever seen a psychiatrist? Right denied
Have you ever taken an anti-depressant or other mood altering medication? Right denied
Do you feel the need to protect yourself? You are paranoid and must be mentally ill, right denied

That's about right. Blanket judgements that will screw half of the population.
Let the witch hunt begin.

 

[smokey]

We tried doing this in Annapolis. Of course, our positions are a little schizophrenic. On one hand, we point out that the common theme among the mass shooters is that they are all mentally ill. Most significantly so. If we just go through the bit ones:

Columbine - One, if not both already plugged into the mental health system
VA Tech - Already adjudicated to be mentally ill
Aurora - Seeing a psychiatrist, and IIRC was reported to the campus police as a danger at least a month before the shooting.
Newtown - Long history of mental illness. Mother looking to get him committed.
Navy Yard - History of violence, and hearing voices. Discharged from Navy reserves because of issues. Ball was dropped because instead of dealing with the issue, they washed their hands of him.

None of their mental health backgrounds are subtle. In defense of the mental health professionals, you only know what a patient will tell you. In some cases, they saw potential for violence and the authorities dropped the ball by not following up. We recognize this is an issue.

Here is where it gets a little tough. We CANNOT let government start putting huge restrictions on people because of mental illness. The vast majority of those with mental illness do OK in society and are not a threat. Does there need to be a mechanism where we make certain people prohibited because of mental illness? Absolutely we do. There are some bat shit crazy people out there. The process needs to have multiple layers to it, and cannot be made too easy. Can you imagine of the O'Malley administration were able to make broad recommendations on who should be prohibited? It is very difficult to come up with a process where you can restrict a fundamental Right in a fair manner.

I'm not that hopeful, you don't get rational laws from irrational lawmakers, especially those hell bent on turning every civilian gun owner into a criminal. While in theory an improved check system that has greater access to mental health data might help stop a shooting or two, the reality of it is a slap in the face to any idea of "reasonable gun control" in any form. States don't reliably report committals and adjudications now, the line of "prohibited person" being judicial, not medical. Our 2a rights are not to be taken lightly, and to restrict them there needs to be due process, not a doctor's recommendation, or worse yet a burocrat combing through our private medical records determining who can have a gun, and who cant. Current statistics estimate about 10% of the population receives some form of mental health treatment, with 25% of the population having a diagnosable illness, this isn't a handful of people with their rights in the crosshairs, it is millions who overwhelmingly are responsible people that appear mostly "normal", and have every right to own firearms and protect themselves. Of course there are some who cannot be responsible with weapons, driving, or living unsupervised, there are current mechanisms to prohibit them from owning firearms, getting a license, or going out in public without a caretaker the best of which is supervision, not forcing an arduous system or infringement on everyone else.

With the present system they can present their case to a judge, get a hearing, and try for a comittal which will prohibit someone. Ownership prohibitions are usually lifelong, and how many people can no longer own a firearm, with the reason no longer being relevant, a middle aged family man who might have had issues as a teen, a vet who had to come to terms with his role in war, even someone that pled guilty to a non-violent felony and received probation decades ago, and hasn't broken the law since, there is no clear avenue to restore rights. Of course all of this also flies in the face of our arguments against banning private sales and establishing mandatory background checks, the errors, the cost, the registry needed for it to work, and so on.

There is also the fallacy that making it harder for mentally ill people to get firearms will stop them from harming others despite other readily available means, arson, explosives, intentionally crashing a vehicle, and every other way imaginable including illegally obtained firearms. The problem isn't firearms, it's the trap of gun control that is pushed front and center every time something bad happens, some don't think it through enough, and fall for it, others jump at their chance to be relevant and push their agenda, and every other idea, weather it is better security, a mental health system free of stigma and easier to access, or expanded opportunities for citizen training and carry, they all get brushed aside.

yup....with alucard's post getting the nod. If someone is severely mentally ill and is a threat, there are currently mechanisms in place to remove them from society to force them to get treatment. The question is not about a gun they may obtain, but about their internal drive to harm others. There are laws against harming others, to assume someone bent on harming others will be law-abiding in getting the tools to do it isn't logical. It's also silly to narrow the scope to preventing a gun attack instead of just an attack.

As others said, stripping someone of their rights shouldn't be done on a whim because it makes sense in someone's mind. There must be due process just like if someone was losing rights by being tossed in the pokey. Whenever someone says we need mental health checks the idea sounds okay to most, until I start asking for them to be extremely specific. EXACTLY WHO is going to have their rights taken? How mentally impaired do you need to be? Are you going to be stripped of your 2A rights for being autistic? If so, where on the spectrum? How about if you suffer from depression? Manic Depression? Insomnia? PTSD? OCD? What about if you're mentally just a little slow and what exact IQ do you need to have in order to be smart enough to have rights? A quick move towards EXACTLY defining who does and does not lose their rights based on a potential futurecrime they may commit based on someone's opinion quickly points out how arbitrary and capricious this line of thought is. But what about schizophrenics!? They must have their rights removed...except they are LESS likely to commit acts of violence as a population than a "normal" population.

Isn't that what the mental health attack is about? Trying to predict trends of behavior and limit access to guns in a blanket attempt to keep a class of people from being able to do harm? Ok, lets completely accept this argument and look at what class of people commit most of the gun violence. That way we can keep that class of people from getting a gun and gun violence should plummit(assuming criminals follow gun laws....which doesn't happen). Let me go plunk around google and find what population should have their 2A right stripped because of a higher rate of gun violence....hmmm......

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf


So by using actual data to support that argument, blacks should be the population group that has their rights stripped because they are the most likely to commit a gun crime. In 2010 the firearm homicide rate/100,000 for blacks was 14.6. For whites it was 1.9 for whites. Clearly being black makes you more likely to commit a gun crime and blacks should have their 2A rights stripped. This is using the exact same logic as people are using in the mental health debate.

Now let's talk about the most direct way to have a positive impact on shootings to reduce harm to innocents. The cool thing is that this way does not infringe on anyone's rights, on the contrary, it is just the free exercise of rights that exist already. The obvious solution is to allow law abiding citizens to carry a firearm for their own defense. While some people focus on the mental health common thread in these mass shootings and fall into the logical fallacy I've pointed out above, I focus on the fact that these shootings happened in gun free areas where people didn't have the tools to stop the threat.

We should not be falling in to their trap to use mental health as a backdoor way to make exercising the 2A a May-issue right...granted by a government worker or a doctor who's best interest legally is NOT to approve someone to have a gun(because what if they shoot someone, that doctor is now screwed). Md'ers should know more than anyone what happens when we allow a government worker to arbitrarily and capriciously determine who is fit and who is not fit to exercise a right. The answer is removing 2A infringments and allowing people to defend themselves. Anything short of that will not work and is an erosion of liberties.

 

[smokey]

I have been practicing medicine for 13 years, and have yet to see that happen. Not to say it doesn't. I would bet if you look at the people it DOES happen to, the vast majority have a history of mental illness.

drug companies don't like being sued either. Tossing that line in there helps when someone who was f'd up before taking the drugs continues to be f'd up and now blames their actions on the drugs.

 

[l730dc]

If you go shoot a bunch of people.. especially go into an elementary school and shoot a bunch of kids... you are ****ing crazy.. diagnosed or no.. you are crazy..

 

[alucard0822]

yup....with alucard's post getting the nod. If someone is severely mentally ill and is a threat, there are currently mechanisms in place to remove them from society to force them to get treatment. The question is not about a gun they may obtain, but about their internal drive to harm others. There are laws against harming others, to assume someone bent on harming others will be law-abiding in getting the tools to do it isn't logical. It's also silly to narrow the scope to preventing a gun attack instead of just an attack.

As others said, stripping someone of their rights shouldn't be done on a whim because it makes sense in someone's mind. There must be due process just like if someone was losing rights by being tossed in the pokey. Whenever someone says we need mental health checks the idea sounds okay to most, until I start asking for them to be extremely specific. EXACTLY WHO is going to have their rights taken? How mentally impaired do you need to be? Are you going to be stripped of your 2A rights for being autistic? If so, where on the spectrum? How about if you suffer from depression? Manic Depression? Insomnia? PTSD? OCD? What about if you're mentally just a little slow and what exact IQ do you need to have in order to be smart enough to have rights? A quick move towards EXACTLY defining who does and does not lose their rights based on a potential futurecrime they may commit based on someone's opinion quickly points out how arbitrary and capricious this line of thought is. But what about schizophrenics!? They must have their rights removed...except they are LESS likely to commit acts of violence as a population than a "normal" population.

Isn't that what the mental health attack is about? Trying to predict trends of behavior and limit access to guns in a blanket attempt to keep a class of people from being able to do harm? Ok, lets completely accept this argument and look at what class of people commit most of the gun violence. That way we can keep that class of people from getting a gun and gun violence should plummit(assuming criminals follow gun laws....which doesn't happen). Let me go plunk around google and find what population should have their 2A right stripped because of a higher rate of gun violence....hmmm......

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf
View attachment 97331

So by using actual data to support that argument, blacks should be the population group that has their rights stripped because they are the most likely to commit a gun crime. In 2010 the firearm homicide rate/100,000 for blacks was 14.6. For whites it was 1.9 for whites. Clearly being black makes you more likely to commit a gun crime and blacks should have their 2A rights stripped. This is using the exact same logic as people are using in the mental health debate.

Now let's talk about the most direct way to have a positive impact on shootings to reduce harm to innocents. The cool thing is that this way does not infringe on anyone's rights, on the contrary, it is just the free exercise of rights that exist already. The obvious solution is to allow law abiding citizens to carry a firearm for their own defense. While some people focus on the mental health common thread in these mass shootings and fall into the logical fallacy I've pointed out above, I focus on the fact that these shootings happened in gun free areas where people didn't have the tools to stop the threat.

We should not be falling in to their trap to use mental health as a backdoor way to make exercising the 2A a May-issue right...granted by a government worker or a doctor who's best interest legally is NOT to approve someone to have a gun(because what if they shoot someone, that doctor is now screwed). Md'ers should know more than anyone what happens when we allow a government worker to arbitrarily and capriciously determine who is fit and who is not fit to exercise a right. The answer is removing 2A infringments and allowing people to defend themselves. Anything short of that will not work and is an erosion of liberties.

 

[hvymax]

Many prescription drugs these days have a disturbing side effect...."May cause homicidal or suicidal thoughts or actions."

This is so true. Ambien and Topamax about sent me off a deep end though I only remember what happened with the Topamax. It seems the trend with medications is screwing with brain. chemistry instead of treating basic symptoms along with creating new proprietary drugs to keep basic generic stuff from taking over the market. New drugs are needed but money still makes the world go round.

 

[drthv8r]

We have the Second Amendment to protect us from gun grabbers, the anti-gun liberals hate this and are making a point to do away with it. If the anti-gun liberal politicians are so bored and have nothing better to do than to keep trampling on the Second Amendment I have some windows they can clean and yard work they can do to keep them busy. As mentioned law abiding tax paying citizens are an easy target, liberals are lazy they take the easy way out. Pushing metal health issues on an individual could lead to lawsuits, it's easier to come after us gun lovers.

 

[smokey]

We have the Second Amendment to protect us from gun grabbers, the anti-gun liberals hate this and are making a point to do away with it. If the anti-gun liberal politicians are so bored and have nothing better to do than to keep trampling on the Second Amendment I have some windows they can clean and yard work they can do to keep them busy. As mentioned law abiding tax paying citizens are an easy target, liberals are lazy they take the easy way out. Pushing metal health issues on an individual could lead to lawsuits, it's easier to come after us gun lovers.

I dunno, I think they'll absolutely push full force for the mental health blocks because
1) it gives the state more access to your medical records...which are already changing dramatically with obamacare
2) it sounds attractive to people that react emotionally and fail to think things through, so it'll sell nationally with support from the media
3) It is a way of making the 2A may-issue. "reasonable restrictions" are allowed under heller. They'll use this to push infringing on people's rights by enlarging the population that is prohibited


with all that said, I feel like the mental health area is the most logical new direction the pro 2A infringement crowd will go....well that and import restrictions/ ending NFA stuff.