If We're Gonna Bring Up Mental Illness...

[A Lil Teapot 89]

...then we should probably talk about how to address it. You can hate me for saying it, but a lot of us like it when "mental illness" is brought up as a defense against anti-gun attitudes and legislation, but if we keep using it as some weak deflection to avoid talking about the issue, people are eventually gonna cry foul.

I deal with mental illness myself (social anxiety). I also bought 5 guns in the last 2 months a.) because I'm not a danger to myself or anyone else and b.) the 4473 is horribly lax on checking for this variable. That's what I'd like to address.

Determining whether or not someone has been adjudicated mentally defective is not enough. A judge is not a mental health professional. A defense lawyer trying to save a client by pleading insanity is not qualified to make that call. If we're going to keep claiming that the perpetrators of mass shootings are mentally ill, we have to look at the problem logically, and address it practically.

What I propose may already count, to most of you, as a violation of the Second Amendment. Then again, I think destructive device classification and tax stamps on suppressors fit that mold too but they're minor annoyances rather than total authoritarian crack downs.

I propose that mental health screenings be required and attached to 4473's. That means you and I would have to get one (with some kind of lengthy renewal period) and background checks would need to be adjusted to look for them. If none was found, the firearm will just be held by the FFL until you can get one.

Of course, one of the major problems with this is determining what's "too crazy" to own a gun. I'm curious to know what ya'll think of this, because I've proposed it to some anti-gunners and they seem okay with the idea, but then again, they would be. I'm also curious to know if there are any other solutions you may have thought of, or if you think mental health is worth addressing in this context at all.

 

[Dammit_Man]

...then we should probably talk about how to address it. You can hate me for saying it, but a lot of us like it when "mental illness" is brought up as a defense against anti-gun attitudes and legislation, but if we keep using it as some weak deflection to avoid talking about the issue, people are eventually gonna cry foul.

I deal with mental illness myself (social anxiety). I also bought 5 guns in the last 2 months a.) because I'm not a danger to myself or anyone else and b.) the 4473 is horribly lax on checking for this variable. That's what I'd like to address.

Determining whether or not someone has been adjudicated mentally defective is not enough. A judge is not a mental health professional. A defense lawyer trying to save a client by pleading insanity is not qualified to make that call. If we're going to keep claiming that the perpetrators of mass shootings are mentally ill, we have to look at the problem logically, and address it practically.

What I propose may already count, to most of you, as a violation of the Second Amendment. Then again, I think destructive device classification and tax stamps on suppressors fit that mold too but they're minor annoyances rather than total authoritarian crack downs.

I propose that mental health screenings be required and attached to 4473's. That means you and I would have to get one (with some kind of lengthy renewal period) and background checks would need to be adjusted to look for them. If none was found, the firearm will just be held by the FFL until you can get one.

Of course, one of the major problems with this is determining what's "too crazy" to own a gun. I'm curious to know what ya'll think of this, because I've proposed it to some anti-gunners and they seem okay with the idea, but then again, they would be. I'm also curious to know if there are any other solutions you may have thought of, or if you think mental health is worth addressing in this context at all.

I don't care about his mental health. He posted online he wanted to shoot up a school. I'd focus on that. Mentally Ill or not.... That's semantics. You need look at behavior. Kid was a delinquent, police ****ed up, fbi ****ed up, social services ****ed up, and we're getting blamed regardless.

Also, 3 posts in your history What's your agenda posting this?

 

[gwchem]

What's to stop some anti-gun psychiatrist to screen you and say the bare fact that you want a gun disqualifies you?

Got mad at someone once? Disqualified
Ever talked to a shrink? Disqualified
Don't fit that particular doctors image of a lifestyle? Disqualified

My point is there's no due process to a mental health screening, and the outcome is subjective.

 

[TexDefender]

I hear you, but why do I have to incur an additional cost to a right. Why not make it mandatory to have the psychiatrist to report an individual to the National Background Check database that the individual is a danger to himself or others? The individual is then placed in a temporary status of "Declined for Medical Reasons" until such time the psychiatrist, or a second psychiatrist or court determines the individual is fit. This could be appealed.

 

[welder516]

Yikes , 3 post in and we have restrictions and what if's .

To me we are suppose to live in a free society , we can choose to not go places and to interact . We can live in the woods in Montana if we like and never see another human . But if you choose to live life then you know about risk and changes we all take .
I want the ability to choose what i want for me and my family , not for a bunch of others to tell me what is good for me and my family .

If others hate guns , knives , or motorcycles , dog's that is their business not mine .

I will never go out of my way to hurt another person , but if someone wants to harm my son or wife and myself well all bets are off . And i have a right to life and the protection of life .

Once he post on-line then that is when someone (LE) is to look closer at him . All the warnings and signs were there and the Police/FBI did nothing . The school dropped the ball as well and now i lose more rights .

 

[gwchem]

No no no no no. I can't believe people don't get this.

A psychiatrist opinion has zero legal bearing on my constitutional right unless I have already committed a crime. Threatening others or myself is a crime, and should be the only basis for mental health interventions.

 

[Alea Jacta Est]

Slippery slope.

Complete and irrevocable distrust of the anti movement and pols in general. Infringement is infringement.

Biblical intransigence on the part of 2A supporters.

Not irrational based on previous behavior and outright dishonesty of left. What are we? Stupid???

Having a dialog would be good. Presuming online public forum as appropriate or useful for that dialog? Not so much.

Dialogs happen in person (two or more people speaking to each other.). Monologue happens on line. Two or more folks talking at and or past each other.

Just my dos centavos

 

[EL1227]

Calling teratos ...

Our good doctor spent many an hour in a bipartisan committee back in 2013 that included law enforcement trying to craft verbiage around what constituted 'mental illness' as it related to gun sales and ownership. There is an old thread here on MDS where it was discussed.

Needless to say, there was broad disagreement.

 

[zoostation]

First of all, there is no correlation between mental illness and violence. Second, it's a bad idea that will deter people who own guns and need help from getting it. Third, it will also open the door to expanding the list of "prohibiting" conditions to take more and more people's gun rights away. Fourth, it won't work anyway. MH professionals will be the first ones to tell you they cannot predict if someone is going to be violent any more than anyone else, and research backs this up. Fifth, we already have a mental health standard of involuntary commitment triggering a lifetime ban unless relieved.

Lastly, and the thing I'm sure anti-gunners love about ideas like this, is with probably 20-40% of the population having some kind of diagnosis or history of at least counseling it's a great way to create a whole new army of anti-gun voters. Because for many people, if you can't have one, then you don't want anyone else having one either.

Oh, and by the way, they already do this in New Jersey where the local police get access to your entire medical and psych history before you can get an FOID to own so much as a BB gun. Your social anxiety diagnosis you mention alone would likely bar you from ownership in many towns and cities.

 

[Alea Jacta Est]

First of all, there is no correlation between mental illness and violence. Second, it's a bad idea that will deter people who own guns and need help from getting it. Third, it will also open the door to expanding the list of "prohibiting" conditions to take more and more people's gun rights away. Fourth, it won't work anyway. MH professionals will be the first ones to tell you they cannot predict if someone is going to be violent any more than anyone else, and research backs this up. Fifth, we already have a mental health standard of involuntary commitment triggering a lifetime ban unless relieved.

Lastly, and the thing I'm sure anti-gunners love about ideas like this, is with probably 20-40% of the population having some kind of diagnosis or history of at least counseling it's a great way to create a whole new army of anti-gun voters. Because for many people, if you can't have one, then you don't want anyone else having one either.

Damn.

Logic. Reason. Truth.

Works for me.

 

[TexDefender]

First of all, there is no correlation between mental illness and violence. Second, it's a bad idea that will deter people who own guns and need help from getting it. Third, it will also open the door to expanding the list of "prohibiting" conditions to take more and more people's gun rights away. Fourth, it won't work anyway. MH professionals will be the first ones to tell you they cannot predict if someone is going to be violent any more than anyone else, and research backs this up. Fifth, we already have a mental health standard of involuntary commitment triggering a lifetime ban unless relieved.

Lastly, and the thing I'm sure anti-gunners love about ideas like this, is with probably 20-40% of the population having some kind of diagnosis or history of at least counseling it's a great way to create a whole new army of anti-gun voters. Because for many people, if you can't have one, then you don't want anyone else having one either.

Some good points, wish we had a place to put all these at. Sorta like a resource library.

 

[Brychan]

Absolutely not

 

[iH8DemLibz]

No doctor will ever sign a piece of paper saying a person's cheese will NEVER slide off their cracker.

Simply a non-starter.

 

[danb]

You deal with anxiety, bought five guns, but you are not a danger to yourself or others, but want to restrict everyone else's rights who has social anxiety?

Wut?

My head is spinning.

No to pretty much everything you said. If I thought this was a serious post I'd offer actual facts (we have actual MDs on this board)... but with only 3 posts I feel my time is being wasted.

Suffice it to say, if you can develop a magic brain scan that determines who is violent (other than the obvious musings on social media) then maybe you have a case. In reality, there are no reliable scientific predictors yet. And if you are a danger, you should not be roaming the streets, period. You would not need more than a truck or a few gallons of gasoline to kill 8 dozen people.

 

[Tebonski]

The Constitution doesn't say we citizens have the right to keep and bear arms depending on what a nut shrink says. Most medical people are liberals.

The gun community will bargain away our rights when the abortion community bargains away their "rights".

 

[Pale Ryder]

What's to stop some anti-gun psychiatrist to screen you and say the bare fact that you want a gun disqualifies you?

Got mad at someone once? Disqualified
Ever talked to a shrink? Disqualified
Don't fit that particular doctors image of a lifestyle? Disqualified

My point is there's no due process to a mental health screening, and the outcome is subjective.

This. Op are you in favor of tests on issues to determine your eligibility to vote?

 

[danb]

Here is how I think restrictions based on mental illness will go, unless there are rock solid due process safeguards:

You are a gun nut, and/or a Republican, no rational person thinks they need a gun. ergo, no guns for you.

Note carefully: they all call gun owners members unstable gun nuts.

 

[Mini14tac]

The Constitution doesn't say we citizens have the right to keep and bear arms depending on what a nut shrink says. Most medical people are liberals.

The gun community will bargain away our rights when the abortion community bargains away their "rights".

^^^^ This!!!! Rights are not based on opinion nor are the temporarily suspendable without due process based on someone's opinion!!!!

 

[TexDefender]

Mr. Frosch, I think is famous for calling all gun owners unstable gun nuts. I think is was last night that he stated something along the lines of he didn't want "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" teaching kids. I had to laugh. I wondered if he was implying that teacher were outlaws. The dude has some affinity for the old west.

 

[Alea Jacta Est]

Mr. Frosch, I think is famous for calling all gun owners unstable gun nuts. I think is was last night that he stated something along the lines of he didn't want "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" teaching kids. I had to laugh. I wondered if he was implying that teacher were outlaws. The dude has some affinity for the old west.

...and sheep.