What do people mean by mental illness?

45223 · Mar 31, 2015

I heard people talk about how the mentally ill shouldn't have guns. I think most of us can agree no one wants a dangerous violent prone schizophrenic guy walking around with a gun. However where does the line get drawn? I hear people talk about banning people with mental illnesses from owning firearms. Well someone with ADD/ADHD (like myself) could be considered to have a "mental illness" since it's a "mental disorder" even though I've never had any offense to ever warrant being considered a danger to the public.
And I'm not even sure I actually should be considered to have ADD. I got diagnosed with ADD because as a kid I prefered to play with my toys or video games over doing homework. I passed high school no problem, never got held back a grade and maintained a B average. In college currently I'm a little behind. I should have graduated last year but I took a few extra semesters off to earn some extra money at work. But I should be graduating this year. I'm not the best but certainly not bad right? I just procrastinated doing my work. Still sort of do. I think it's just called being lazy. At least that's what they called it back in the day. I also have a tendency to talk and talk about stuff. So I'll try not to make this too long. lol

About half of my friends have "mental illnesses" by best friend got diagnosed with social anxiety because he told the "doctor" that he sometimes get nervous when in large crowds of people that he doesn't know, and gets nervous when talking to hot girls. I do too in both those situations. I thought that was normal right? Do they think that should bar him from owning a gun?

My girlfriend had a history of depression, she's fine now. Is that a mental disorder/illness?

Apparently once you get diagnosed with something it's on your record forever. The "history of" part is kind of is the scary part. And when people say mental illness I see they also include many very common conditions. Accoarding to this website http://www2.nami.org/factsheets/mentalillness_factsheet.pdf 1 in 4 Americans experiences a mental illness at any one given time. That's a lot. But most people sometimes run into problems in life. Most of the time they shake it off and overcome or adapt. They're not a danger. And while I understand there are no laws preventing this. I see a lot of "pro-gun" people talking about how we need to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. I bet some of them have something a doctor would give them a diagnosis for. I think our laws regarding mental people are fine already. If you get declared a danger to the public in a court then I'll accept that. Just having a mental disorder? No that's unconstitutional. Mentally ill people can join the army (I might be doing that) and police and have guns, yet people talk as if those very same people shouldn't have a gun as a civilian apparently. And don't get me started on PTSD.

texasgun · Mar 31, 2015

IMHO mentally ill (and should be banned from owning guns) is someone who is a DANGER to society.

And that is typically defined by prior run ins with the law OR being admitted to a mental institution against your will.

If we prevent everybody who ever felt depressed, OCD, anxiety and whatnot from owning firearms... not many people would have a gun. trust me.

Phaedrus/69 · Mar 31, 2015

Mental illness is a serious issue but I think we have to err on the side of preserving rights. A raving nut shouldn't be able to have a gun but it's pretty easy to "get into the system" and have many of your fundamental rights stripped from you. The scariest thing is that there's often no due process involved. The second scariest thing is that stigmatizing people with mental illness tends to drive it underground- people won't seek help if they fear being permanently branded and marginalized.

I'd reserve the "ban hammer" for violent people and the truly unhinged, just people with depression or ADHD. JMOHO.

1911 guy · Mar 31, 2015

I think the 4473 and the law are both currently written a "adjudicated mentally deficient". That means mental problems enough to wind up in court and a judge declares you are mentally unfit to conduct your own business. If it's gone that far, you probably shouldn't own a firearm.

leadcounsel · Mar 31, 2015

Hmmm... "shall not infringe...." Pretty plain language if you ask me.

Herein lies the problem in many ways, but it all really gets back to liberals and their twisted ideas of gun control. And it is always a slippery slope. We ban nonviolent felons. We ban "domestic abusers" who have been convicted of little more than misdemeanor arguments or pushing their (ever expanding) list of household individuals including spouse, significant other, domestic partner, parent, child, relative, or roommate... Drug users are effectively on that list. I would expect DUIs to soon be on that list too, at this rate.

On topic - Let us assume we can all agree that XYZ mental illness diagnosis is too dangerous or unstable to own guns. Okay, fine.

Let's look at REALITY and not fiction. The number of murder victims annually in the USA is extremely low at under 15,000 annually. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc.../crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls
That is, shockingly, low. Note a full 1/3rd of annual murders in the US occur by someone using a weapon other than a firearm: Knives make up about 20% of murder instruments, followed by hands/feet (~10%), and clubs (~7%).

What about gasoline and matches? Should this person not be allowed to buy gasoline and matches? In the USA there's an average of nearly 300,000 arsons annually, which result in an average of over 100 deaths, 1300 injuries, and over a billion dollars in damages.

So, we jump through all these hoops to stop someone from buying a gun - yet they can acquire literally any number of highly effective and more common and affordable weapons at convenience stores, hardware stores, online, you name it.

I view this whole mental illness thing as a slippery slope end-run on gun control and once we agree on some prohibitions, the definition is changed to encompass more and more people. And that's already happening. We've seen the expert wordplay and changing definitions of other socially hot topics and he who controls the language, controls the law and the people. Reminds me of "1984" and "newspeak."

I see this also as a chilling effect on someone who should otherwise go see a therapist or psychiatrist, but won't because of the fear of losing his gun rights. "PTSD" can be considered a disqualifier and I know of vets who refused to self-identify due to the stigma and fear of loss of gun rights.

We as a community need to reject any more encroachments and begin repealing the ones already encumbering our rights, starting with getting rid of Lautenberg and the non-violent felon bans. These are total nonsense.

Bexar · Mar 31, 2015

I think there is a provision on the 4473 that discusses the PTSD for veterans and commitment.

Extreme grief can cause incapacity for years allowing people to only become functional zombies but in no way a danger to anyone. Even requiring hospitalization if the judge, motivated by family considers it necessary. I've seen the sister of a friend of mine completely shut down for a year including losing her home because she couldn't even write a check to the mortgage company despite having the funds. Family trying to help her through her loss only made it worse. Time was her only cure. You can't tell me death of a loved one hasn't put some of the strongest among us in a mental institution. How about a guy that lost his wife and three kids to a drunk driver? He can't be expected to function normally for years to come...but afterwards many do. I've seen death of a treasured loved one completely foul up some very strong people who would never even consider wrongfully harm another human being or even a goat. Yet...they can be banned for life from ever owning a firearm again...including a shotgun for quail hunting. Anyway...the rule needs to be looked at and adjusted like the provision for veteran PTSD has been.

Didn't California just pass a law that states that if "X" number of people advise a Chief LEO of an area that someone should not have a firearm because they are acting "goofy" the LEO can confiscate the person's firearm?

HexHead · Mar 31, 2015

"Gun control" isn't about the guns. It's all about control. People control.

Ranger Roberts · Mar 31, 2015

Mental illness is a pretty slippery slope when it comes to gun ownership. I've actually talked about it on this forum before. In my line of work I see people involuntarily committed occasionally and many times it is more of a he said she said situation. For example there is a domestic disagreement and actor A says that actor B is suicidal. Actor A says this because he/she just wants actor B to "sit it off" for a few days. Boom! Actor B is no longer allowed to have guns.

What about our veterans? We've been at war since 2001. There are a lot of vets walking around with PTSD. It certainly doesn't mean that they are mentally deficient, it could be as simple as they have trouble sleeping during a thunderstorm. I can almost guarantee that the anti's would love to see these guys lose the rights that they fought to maintain.

So what about a guy who just lost a loved one? Is that guy depressed afterwards? I'd be willing to bet that he is. Heck, I bet it probably isn't even a great idea for that guy to be making life changing decisions for a little bit due to his current circumstances. That certainly doesn't mean that his rights should be stripped away for the rest of his life!

However if you spend your day talking to the toaster and banging a machete against the wall, threatening everyone that walks by, maybe instead of talking about your gun rights we should be talking about the best way to get you some help so you can live a normal productive life.

Like I said, it's a slippery slope and it's definitely not a black and white issue. Most mental illness lives in a grey area and addressing it isn't going to be cut and dry.

Art Eatman · Mar 31, 2015

Lots of problems with the term "mental illness". Sorta like a person with a cold is physically ill--but so was I, with major cancer.

So, it's layman's usage of, "He's nuts!" vs. court-adjudicated legal opinion as to mental incompetence, augmented by psychiatric testimony.

IOW, ya gotta be careful or you can have an opinion that comes across as being covered all over with stupid. So be precise, think twice, post once.

BSA1 · Mar 31, 2015

Mental Disorders / Illness is poorly understood by most of the general population. You often will see this lack of knowledge in the workplace and on discussion forums.

Folks are generally knowledgable about medical problems like cancer, heart, strokes, ect., ect. in large part because they discuss them with friends, neighbors and co-workers. Walk into work and tell your co-workers your Doctor says that you have hypertension and you will get sympathy and medical advice on ways to reduce/treat it.

Mental illness on the other hand is treated as something evil and to be feared. How often do we see a news chick on the nightly news at the scene of a violent crime say the person that committed the crime was bipolar? Where did the news chick get that information? Most likely from a bystander that claims to know the person.

The social stigma is hugh. My employer yesterday put out a email asking employees with disabilities to self identify themselves. Yep you guessed it. Bipolar is one (and the only mental disorder) of the disabilities listed. Of course the information won't be used against you but they included lines at the bottom of the form for the employees name and number.

Not be used against you. Yeah right. If so why do they want to know?

PTSD is another one. My 83 year old Dad still has occasional nightmares about his bombing missions over North Korea. He wakes up in cold sweats. In one mission his plane was hit with one engine on fire. They could not put the fire out and in a last chance effort to avoid bailing out and being captured (at this stage of the war they knew about the mistreatment of prisoners) they put the plane into a dive blowing out the flames and made a emergency landing in South Korea. He was awarded a medal for saving the plane and its crew. He went on to marry, raise a family and work a well paying job.

In todays society there are very valid reasons for the individual that is receiving mental health treatment or has a mental disorder not to discuss it with anyone other than his Doctor and immediate family.

alsaqr · Mar 31, 2015

I think the 4473 and the law are both currently written a "adjudicated mentally deficient". That means mental problems enough to wind up in court and a judge declares you are mentally unfit to conduct your own business. If it's gone that far, you probably shouldn't own a firearm.

This!!!! The applicable term is "adjudicated mentally deficient".

The applicable law is the NICS Improvement Act of 2007 (2008). Everyone on these gun boards should read this law.

i know dozens of combat veterans with PTSD. None are banned from owning or buying guns. PTSD alone will not get one banned from gun ownership.

Many states, like Oklahoma, often fail to report their adjudicated mental cases to NICS.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr2640/text

BSA1 · Mar 31, 2015

i know dozens of combat veterans with PTSD. None are banned from owning or buying guns. PTSD alone will not get one banned from gun ownership.

You better had tell that to the V.A. Doctors and Administrators.

"Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., sought to amend the bill to stop the Veterans Affairs Department from putting the names of veterans deemed too mentally incompetent to handle their finances into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which prohibits them from buying or owning firearms." 12/12.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/03/veterans-gun-rights-sticking-point-in-defense-bill/

"In an apparent threat to Second Amendment rights, some American military veterans have received a letter from the Veterans Administration warning that their competency to handle their own affairs is under review, and if determined by government bureaucrats to be “incompetent,” they would be barred from possessing weapons." 2/13

http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/obama-threatening-veterans-gun-rights/

AlexanderA · Mar 31, 2015

This!!!! The applicable term is "adjudicated mentally deficient".

What this usually boils down to is a judicially-mandated involuntary commitment. The standards for involuntary commitment vary, but it's usually along the lines of a proven "danger to oneself or others."

There's also the matter of a civil determination of inability to manage one's own affairs, so that some sort of guardian is appointed. It's not clear if such a civil determination would be entered into an appropriate database, so that it would show up on a NICS check.

buck460XVR · Mar 31, 2015

leadcounsel said:
Hmmm... "shall not infringe...." Pretty plain language if you ask me.

I don't think there is anybody that does not agree, that there are truly some folks that shouldn't have guns because of severe Mental illness and/or mental deficiency, regardless of how hard they bang the 2nd Amendment drum. But as that German Airline crash shows us, it hard to tell when someone who appears perfectly normal, has gone off the deep end. The problem is not with keeping guns outta the hands of those that are a real threat to others, but determining just who that threat is. Many of the highly publicized mass shootings have been done by persons with a definite problem. A problem sometimes brought to the attention of authorities by friends and family but ignored.

Some folks say we need to error on the side or our 2nd Amendment rights, while others claim we need to error on the side of public safety. Regardless of who is right or wrong, the majority opinion is the one that is going to determine how we error.

Thermactor · Mar 31, 2015

Mental Illness is a canard, a backdoor gun grabbing scheme.

alsaqr · Mar 31, 2015

In an apparent threat to Second Amendment rights, some American military veterans have received a letter from the Veterans Administration warning that their competency to handle their own affairs is under review, and if determined by government bureaucrats to be “incompetent,” they would be barred from possessing weapons." 2/13

i'm a long time veterans advocate. This is a scare tactic from the propaganda minister at World Net Daily.

"Competency under review". Not hardly!!! The family of veterans who are unable to manage their own finances almost always ask for a guardian, usually a relative, be appointed to manage the vets financial affairs.

General Shinseki stopped reporting these guys to NICS. Not sure about the new guy at DOVA.

Yep, our wonderful senator Coburn cared so much about veterans that he dropped his proposal at the request of Chuckie Schumer.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/03/veterans-gun-rights-sticking-point-in-defense-bill/

From a veterans advocacy organization:

If anyone knows ANY VETERAN who has been adjudicated as incompetant to handle his fiduciary stuff, but who isn’t absolytely BAT**** crazy (and/or) who hasn’t threatened to kill themselves or others, than contact us. Seriously. I looked for months and months, and never found one. I’d find someone who was almost perfect, and then we’d find out how he threatened to kill his mom or himself. If you know an actual person that shouldn’t have had this happen, JUST CONTACT US.

http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=34265

Nom de Forum · Mar 31, 2015

I have had conversations with people who self-identified as Liberals, but were so authoritarian in their attitude about gun ownership as to be indistinguishable in attitude from some people on the extreme Right are about religion. These "Liberals" gave me the impression that the mere desire to possess guns was an indication of mental illness. There are many people who would not self-identify as Liberals or Conservatives that support the RKBA. It is a classic political tactic to question the mental fitness of your opposition and we must all be on guard to detect insidious use of this tactic to deny any of our Constitutional rights. All those rights have been, are, and will be threatened by authoritarian personalities on the Left and the Right.

X-Rap · Mar 31, 2015

What makes us think that a judges order will protect us tomorrow?
Freedom requires some risk and free people should prepare for that eventuality.
The mental health crowd loves to create victims but doesn't like to shoulder the blame when one of their protected class goes off his meds.
So long as we have physical recourse in dealing with those poor souls I say live and let live.

buck460XVR · Mar 31, 2015

Thermactor said:
Mental Illness is a canard, a backdoor gun grabbing scheme.

No it's not. Anyone who has been around someone with manic depression/Bi-Polar Disorder knows all to well that Mental Illness is no fairy tale. It is a very serious problem and it, along with other Mental health issues are very real and are as serious as any major physical health issue. Are there folks out there that are just using mental health as an excuse to get guns outta the hands of law abiding citizens? Of course there are, but there are also just as many folks out there that are a real threat. Both are a very small number. It's the general population that needs to figure out where their priorities lie and how to determine what constitutes a legitimate danger. Doesn't take a Rocket Scientist to realize that those are not going to be the same on a gun forum as it is on a soccer mom forum. Neither extreme should have sole authority to make that decision for the general public.

guyfromohio · Mar 31, 2015

This is a hard one. Someone I know was going through some stuff with his mother and wife. In order for insurance to pay, there had to be a diagnosis. This person chose to pay private so there was no history of a diagnosis. Now with the federal government being involved in healthcare, your medical history is no longer secure. I do see this being an issue in the future as stated a few times in this thread.

Another example... The father of one of my kids' friends is a vet and returned from Afghanistan about 6 years ago after serving as a Ranger. He has been diagnosed with PTSD and struggled for the first few years. He is now back to work and doing well. Guns are a passion of his...likely one of the things that kept him level. Should his rights have been squashed because of this diagnosis? Legal ramifications should accompany acts, not potentials.

DHJenkins · Mar 31, 2015

I think the problem is language; people (including/especially the media) are using a very broad term to define a very narrow band of illness. It's like referring to people who jaywalk as "criminals". Technically, it's a factual statement, but most wouldn't use that term because it's almost always reserved more serious situations. As most people understand that someone with OCD isn't the same as someone with a severe psychosis, I can't see everyone with a mental illness being lumped together (in areas where gun control isn't already a priority); especially since there are plenty of people who think conditions like ADD are just "bad behavior" and don't even count as an illness.

Sunray · Mar 31, 2015

Some mental health pros will tell you there's no such thing as ADD/ADHD. I think it was invented by high school teachers to explain why kids can graduate without being able to reads, write or spell.
Your second paragraph sound a lot like me. Had grade school teachers who's only qualification was being a nun. Ferocious female dog that she was. Screamed at you if you were fast enough with an answer.
Now, I'm told I'm a grumpy old fart. I tell 'em to do what I tell 'em and everything will be fine. So will you.

BSA1 · Mar 31, 2015

buck460XVR,

You forgot to mention that bipolar disorder along with other types of mental illness is treatable with counseling and medication and the individual can live normal lives and hold a steady job.

Bexar · Mar 31, 2015

Some and most dysfunctional mental illness is curable. They were discussing a very similar topic on the talking head news over the GermanWings pilot. However some mental illness is not curable. Some folks are simply fouled up. What I find curious is why are the mass shooters that have demonstrated a history of extreme mental illness such as Schizophrenia seem to be entirely male? Women that suffer from the condition seem to attack their kids but not the random public and not with a firearm.

The GermanWings pilot killed 150 people as coolly as someone driving to a movie. Why do males who are less than the general population almost always the gender that predominantly slaughter random groups?

jmr40 · Mar 31, 2015

I don't have the answer.

But every time there is a high profile shooting like the one at Columbine, or Sandy Hook the first thing that comes up on the gun forums is that the problem is with the person, not the gun. Looking back at all of these shootings most of us would agree that the shooters in most cases were not mentally capable of having a gun.

We can't have it both ways. Somehow there needs to be a line drawn that says that some people shouldn't be allowed to own or use a gun. I don't know where that line should be drawn, but it does need to be discussed.

What do people mean by mental illness?

Member

Member

Member

Member

member

Member

Member

Become a THR contributing member!

Moderator In Memoriam

member

Member

member

Member

Member

member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

member

Member

Member

Similar threads