Poll: Are Suicide Attempts Enough to Take Your Guns?

[foxtrapper]

I haven't read all 4 pages, but do have something to say. When someone forces an intervention it can sometimes make things even worst in regards to the mental state of the person. They will become very upset at the person/persons who forced the intervention if the intervention leads to involuntary commital, arrests, and yes- gun confiscation. This may tip them further than they may have had it been a peaceful loving intervention not involving any law enforcement ( sometimes you just want to be loved and acknowledged when deeply depressed). Anger can come into play, as well as resentment, esp in cases of where one says things and someone else takes it too seriously. Now you go from a cry for help to rage towards the over the top intervention.

Now there are some people with very serious mental conditions, but it is more than just depression they are dealing with. They may be bipolar of scitzophrenic or a sociopath.

I am someone who had severe depression with anger issues attached, and my intervention did not involve police, an ER, or any clinical mental health commital. I realized I was leaving the realm of control and had no problem getting private help at that point, in fact I was a bit embarassed by it all. On medication I improved dramatically, though it did nearly destroy the unbridled creative part of me. I guess to be a good artist one must be crazy LOL. Today I am balanced, though I still deal with some OCD and thoughts that everyone is always rejecting me. However I have not had anger issues in many years, and prefer the way of peace. Since I started carrying I have become even more mellow. My main underlying issue, going back to age 4, has more than likey been due to mild aspergers. Unable to socialize properly with other kids and trying to mimic to fit in, but never fitting in, and having obsessive learning related interests that I never saw other kids having. Like wanting an articulated cat skeleton at age 10 LOL. To the point of being willing to dig up cat bones and put them together myself. There was nothing "sick" about it, and it lead me to self study skeletal anatomy for years afterwards.

 

[HardHatMan]

Please pardon any incoherence on my part but here's a case I'm familiar with regarding the topic.

1. A person blows off steam to another concerning people they had issues with. No mention is made of the workplace.
2. That person they spoke with then calls the individual's place of employment assuming they're venting about people at work.
3. The folks at work go into a semi-state of panic thinking there will be an incident at work and threaten the employee with termination if they do not
turn their guns over to someone else.
4. The employee, wanting to keep their job and maintain the peace, is
flabbergasted at the turn of events but voluntarily gives them over to family members.
5. The workplace then "requires" an evaluation be done at which time the psychiatrist states that before they'll give an "all clear", a signed statement will be required from the recipient of the firearms that they have possession of them. Also, the holder of the weapons won't release them until the psychiatrist says it's okay to do so.
6. Furthermore, the weapons are not to be returned unless the folks at work say it's okay to do so.
7. After 3 months, the people at work then backtrack and state that they are not going to provide a statement to the doctor as "it's none of their business" and they don't want the "organization" to be involved. Excuse me? Emphasis mine
8. Therefore, the psychiatrist won't provide a letter to the holder of the weapons and now this person is royally screwed.
9. At no time was this person ever determined to be "mentally defective" or anything like that so now their only alternative is to go right back and get more firearms.

The reason I put all this here is that I do fear the "slippery slope" but also the "unfounded allegation" that is borne out of ignorance and/or fear.

Wow. Just wow. I am assuming this happened to someone you know. Truly scary to think that is how it all worked out.

As to the part in red; WTF? How can someone not get their personal property back because of what their work says. That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard of.

 

[Happydude]

That's exactly what happened however the end result of the story was that the family member saw through the bravo sierra and returned the weapons to them anyway when they were informed of what was going on with the persons work and the doctor's office. If I might add, I believe that this doctor was one of those who are anti 2A.

 

[Srsanbo]

Apologies if this has been said already...

I voted 'no'.

I agree with many of the points on both sides, but when I consider the can of worms that would opened with confiscation based on a subjective basis...let's just say I think Ben Franklin was right when he spoke of those that forfeit liberty for security deserving neither.

If a person has proven a danger to his or herself (or others) - a suicide attempt might qualify to that end - I consider it a the duty of those involved (be it police, family, whoever) to ensure they are put in a position where they are unable to harm themselves or anyone. In other words, if it is that important, immediately treat the person, don't yank their rights and be done with it. As many have said, whether they intend to harm themselves or others, they will find a way if able. It is sure to prove out that it is too easy to have someone deemed "dangerous" by the state but it is a better solution than revoking a right. Too bad so few can count on their families anymore...but that's another thread.

I can't help but think that if MD was shall-issue, some of the anxiety I might feel deep down when imagining the carnage that could be unleashed by someone homicidal and suicidal would be abated. It might provide other options than becoming a victim. It may even shake the fence some of those that vote 'yes' are standing on, causing them to fall on the opposite side. Maybe not.

Not as cerebral nor granular on the cause and effect of my choice as many of the posts inspired by life experience with mental illness. I just think it comes down to how much you want those with legislative authority to determine your fate.

 

[itsslow98]

They can take your firearms if a protective order is issued against you, so why shouldn't they take them if you have a KNOWN history of attempting to harm yourself?

 

[RosadoSM]

Melancholy is not depression and depression is not 'clinical depression'. There is a big difference between someone who is down in the dumps for a few days, a week or a month and snaps out of it with a new job or a new girlfriend and someone whose body has started to shut down and who has no internal means of pulling it together or making any real decisions for themselves.

My VERY limited experience is that a person who is clinically depressed will gladly hand over his firearms just because you asked. The guy I'm talking about didn't want to hurt anyone and was afraid of hurting himself even though he talked a lot about suicide. Suicide for him was a way to make it end, not a way to take everyone and every thing down with him. He eventually pulled through and I gave his guns back to him but I never saw in him as a danger to others.

Also, my taking my friend's guns to store for a while is quite a different matter than the state confiscating them. He and I got to decide when he was OK to get them back and no state troopers or judges were involved.

100% agree

 

[eruby]

Not always. Most of the time, but not always. Also, who is to say the issues won't progress? Cry for help...no help comes. Decide it just isn't worth living anymore. BANG!

You never really know what's in someone's mind:

http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/richard-cory/

I voted no.

 

[mike_in_md]

The simple fact that a person who attempted suicide is on the street in itself justifies restoring all rights for possessing guns, unless you have been adjudicated mentally defective for conditions such as mental retardation. The bottom line is that attempted suicide is considered a temporary condition under the law.

To simplify further, a person that is a danger to himself or others must be placed in a mental health facility. Once released, that person has been cleared as a threat to himself or others. Therefore, to answer the question about confiscation. The answer is "NO" since that person will be in a mental health facility and will not be released until the mental health facility determines that the person is safe. There are no guns in a mental health facility.

 

[xd40c]

I said Yes based on your senario of a party taking pot shots at a LEO. This party had several Suicide attempts, and had seemingly lost respect not only for his own life, but also that of others. At this point I do NOT want him possesing guns of any kind.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be due process. And there should absolutely be a way for him to regain his wepons after treatment/theapy. Being suicidal over some event (divorce/death of spouse etc.), does not mean you are permanently incapacitated.

 

[Mason-Dixon Baseball]

I'd say it depends--- depends on whether or not we live in Maryland where people are only allowed to defend themselves and their use of the 2nd Amendment if it involves a lot of money, or if you live somewhere else where you can carry and defend your life by exercising your 2nd Amendment right........

Overall, I'd lean toward yes, take the guns away-- Suicide is a very tough topic to discuss... I just don't get it.... If things ever got that bad, I'd just move somewhere far away and start a new identity...new life.... But then again, thank God I'm not mentally ill....

 

[Squaredout]

I vote Yes. Take them until you no longer want to harm yourself or others.

 

[mike_in_md]

Reading some of the responses in this thread helps me understand why Maryland is called a Nanny state.

 

[damifinowfish]

I come down on the "no" side for a couple of reasons:

1. First and foremost in my mind is the slippery slope. Psychiatry and psychology are both psuedo-sciences. No I'm not channeling Tom Cruise. The treatment of the human mind involves some guess work to a degree because the human mind is not easily quantified or analyzed. Of course, when it comes down to blatant suicide attempts, I believe that the state has no business interfering with a person's decision to off themselves; laws against such are silly at best. There are other, more well-grounded and decisive laws that can be used to confiscate a person's arms if they act in a manner that is dangerous to those around them. Basing a decision on a person's natural rights on some subjective notion of mental illness and alleged suicide attempts is a dangerous road to trod down. Sooner or later, someone is going to start identifying political opponents as "mentally ill" and a "danger to society" and use that as an excuse to curtail their rights or incarcerate them.

2. Second thought that comes to mind is that the nature of the suicide attempt could encompass a number of methods and therefore, if you follow the idea of confiscating one's firearms because of a suicide attempt, you must also confiscate any manner of objects that one could use to off one's self. If someone attempts suicide by aspirin, should we then confiscate that person's guns and all of the aspirin in the house; create a watch-list registration for aspirin and created "prohibited person" categories for aspirin purchases?

Those are my two immediate objections to the idea that we should confiscate someone's firearms or otherwise curtail someone's rights on the basis of "suicide attempts."

+1

A person can recover from the reason that caused one to attempt suicide.

 

[robdiao]

I lean more towards yes, but not forever. If someone has physically attempted suicide, a gun is a quick easy way to do it. I understand the arguments "if someone wants to do it, they are gonna find a way." Agreed. But its a easy, almost sure way to do it.

I do not think that just because someone is suicidal, that they are a danger to others. Lots of people in deep despair that would never want to hurt anyone else.

 

[Markp]

I come down on the "no" side for a couple of reasons:

1. First and foremost in my mind is the slippery slope. Psychiatry and psychology are both psuedo-sciences. No I'm not channeling Tom Cruise. The treatment of the human mind involves some guess work to a degree because the human mind is not easily quantified or analyzed. Of course, when it comes down to blatant suicide attempts, I believe that the state has no business interfering with a person's decision to off themselves; laws against such are silly at best. There are other, more well-grounded and decisive laws that can be used to confiscate a person's arms if they act in a manner that is dangerous to those around them. Basing a decision on a person's natural rights on some subjective notion of mental illness and alleged suicide attempts is a dangerous road to trod down. Sooner or later, someone is going to start identifying political opponents as "mentally ill" and a "danger to society" and use that as an excuse to curtail their rights or incarcerate them.


Those are my two immediate objections to the idea that we should confiscate someone's firearms or otherwise curtail someone's rights on the basis of "suicide attempts."

Rusty,

No offense, but just because psychologists are not mind readers does not regulate psychology to pseudo-science, as a matter of fact most psychological studies undergo some of the most rigorous scientific methods of any science precisely due to the nature of the science itself. It's definitely hard to pin down human behavior due to the huge number of confounding variables, but to suggest that psychology is not a rigorous science is pretty foolhardy. I didn't spend the last 6 years of my life working on my Ph.D. in reading tea leaves. I spent it learning statistics, research methods, and observing and reporting on various psychological phenomenon that can be replicated both in lab studies and generalized to real world applications.


Now to the question, the question is not should a suicidal gesture or attempt be sufficient to take your guns, but is an suicide attempt enough to take your guns. The answer is unequivocal, yes, in this day and age, a suicide attempt is often sufficient justification to disarm a person. Doesn't make it right, but that's the reality.


Mark

PS - As a military psych, if I want a military member disarmed. It's a done deal.

 

[Plinkey]

I lean towards a 'yes' on this issue but only very, very slightly.

I'm pretty much in agreement that if someone really wants to kill themselves that they will find a way to do it even without firearms. I also believe that if someone does seek help for severe depression or suicidal thoughts the (maybe voluntary) temporary removal of firearms from their possession should be an option. The way that this is done would be the key issue for me. In cases where a person has attempted suicide before I could see the removal of firearms in collaboration with help and support. This removal should not be permanent or be held against them later in life though.

It's hard to draw analogs to other issues where a person would need support because of a mental disease such as drug abuse or alcohol addiction because the effects of suicide are immediate, devastating and permanent.

Basically I think that the firearms themselves are not the issue here just as having Aspirin in the house is not the issue when someone is suicidal.

 

[Lex Armarum]

Rusty,

No offense, but just because psychologists are not mind readers does not regulate psychology to pseudo-science, as a matter of fact most psychological studies undergo some of the most rigorous scientific methods of any science precisely due to the nature of the science itself. It's definitely hard to pin down human behavior due to the huge number of confounding variables, but to suggest that psychology is not a rigorous science is pretty foolhardy. I didn't spend the last 6 years of my life working on my Ph.D. in reading tea leaves. I spent it learning statistics, research methods, and observing and reporting on various psychological phenomenon that can be replicated both in lab studies and generalized to real world applications.


Now to the question, the question is not should a suicidal gesture or attempt be sufficient to take your guns, but is an suicide attempt enough to take your guns. The answer is unequivocal, yes, in this day and age, a suicide attempt is often sufficient justification to disarm a person. Doesn't make it right, but that's the reality.


Mark

PS - As a military psych, if I want a military member disarmed. It's a done deal.

Mark,

My post was not an attack on psychiatry or psychology but rather a criticism of using such as a means to restrict one's rights because of the simple fact that in-the-trenches psychology is not a hard and fast scientific practice due to the variables in such diagnoses. There is no way to verify that the shrink's ultimate diagnoses is 100% correct because the subject may be lying or prevaricating. In such a case, I don't believe that said testimony or diagnoses should then be used to confiscate a person's property or curtail one's rights. Did you read the case I cited in my second post?

More to the point, when you hear of six different shrink's giving six different diagnoses or prescribing hit or miss medication that depends on a person's chemistry, how can we say that psychology is an exact science. What is a person is suicidal because the State/private doctor placed them on an inappropriate medication which made them suicidal (see numerous studies showing certain psych. meds will make some patients suicidal). Should we then curtail the rights of a person who would be fine except that the State/professional induced the suicidal condition? What should we do in cases where the psychologist/psychiatrist over-diagnoses due to liability concerns? What do we do about the political aspect of allowing psychological conditions as the determinate factor in keeping your personal property/constitutional rights?

Regarding psychological studies, I am sure that these studies do undergo rigorous peer review and scientific authentication. However, when the State comes to take away your guns, they're not going to be citing a psychological studies. Rather, the State or police will have their paid shrink (i.e. paid expert) up on the stand telling the court or writing a report about how much of a danger you are to society. If you produce an expert opinion stating that so and so is suicidal, I bet you 10-to-1 that I could find an equally qualified expert to contradict that point of view. If you cannot afford a dueling expert (or if you're not allowed to present the opinion of another expert), I guess you're SOL.

Hell, I was suicidal a moment ago when I had to listen to another attorney tell me the gory details of a family-law mediation. I would have drilled a hole in my skull to get out of that meeting. Maybe the state should come and confiscate my guns?

 

[jaypark]

Rusty,

No offense, but just because psychologists are not mind readers does not regulate psychology to pseudo-science, as a matter of fact most psychological studies undergo some of the most rigorous scientific methods of any science precisely due to the nature of the science itself. It's definitely hard to pin down human behavior due to the huge number of confounding variables, but to suggest that psychology is not a rigorous science is pretty foolhardy. I didn't spend the last 6 years of my life working on my Ph.D. in reading tea leaves. I spent it learning statistics, research methods, and observing and reporting on various psychological phenomenon that can be replicated both in lab studies and generalized to real world applications.


Now to the question, the question is not should a suicidal gesture or attempt be sufficient to take your guns, but is an suicide attempt enough to take your guns. The answer is unequivocal, yes, in this day and age, a suicide attempt is often sufficient justification to disarm a person. Doesn't make it right, but that's the reality.


Mark

PS - As a military psych, if I want a military member disarmed. It's a done deal.

+1

Maybe the state should come and confiscate my guns?

We're en route.... I'm kidding Sir.... put the gun and list of people to kill down please

 

[rseymorejr]

Mark,

My post was not an attack on psychiatry or psychology but rather a criticism of using such as a means to restrict one's rights because of the simple fact that in-the-trenches psychology is not a hard and fast scientific practice due to the variables in such diagnoses. There is no way to verify that the shrink's ultimate diagnoses is 100% correct because the subject may be lying or prevaricating. In such a case, I don't believe that said testimony or diagnoses should then be used to confiscate a person's property or curtail one's rights. Did you read the case I cited in my second post?

More to the point, when you hear of six different shrink's giving six different diagnoses or prescribing hit or miss medication that depends on a person's chemistry, how can we say that psychology is an exact science. What is a person is suicidal because the State/private doctor placed them on an inappropriate medication which made them suicidal (see numerous studies showing certain psych. meds will make some patients suicidal). Should we then curtail the rights of a person who would be fine except that the State/professional induced the suicidal condition? What should we do in cases where the psychologist/psychiatrist over-diagnoses due to liability concerns? What do we do about the political aspect of allowing psychological conditions as the determinate factor in keeping your personal property/constitutional rights?

Regarding psychological studies, I am sure that these studies do undergo rigorous peer review and scientific authentication. However, when the State comes to take away your guns, they're not going to be citing a psychological studies. Rather, the State or police will have their paid shrink (i.e. paid expert) up on the stand telling the court or writing a report about how much of a danger you are to society. If you produce an expert opinion stating that so and so is suicidal, I bet you 10-to-1 that I could find an equally qualified expert to contradict that point of view. If you cannot afford a dueling expert (or if you're not allowed to present the opinion of another expert), I guess you're SOL.

Hell, I was suicidal a moment ago when I had to listen to another attorney tell me the gory details of a family-law mediation. I would have drilled a hole in my skull to get out of that meeting. Maybe the state should come and confiscate my guns?

Realisticly, would anyone stick their neck out that far if someone was already labeled "dangerous and suicidal".How much liability would go along with that?

 

[Lex Armarum]

Realisticly, would anyone stick their neck out that far if someone was already labeled "dangerous and suicidal".How much liability would go along with that?

Of course because there are two sides to every story. Each shrink (paid by each side mind you - the State pays their people too) may have a different view of the defendant's mental stability/condition.