Mental Health and Firearms Ownership, what do you think?

[rellascout]

20% of Americans suffer from a mental illness.

http://health.usnews.com/health-new...al-illness-hit-1-in-5--us-adults-in-past-year

A new survey finds that 20 percent of U.S. adults -- over 45 million people -- experienced mental illness in the past year.
Click here to find out more!

Overall, 4.8 percent (11 million people) suffered serious mental illness, 8.4 million people had serious thoughts of suicide, 2.2 million made suicide plans, and one million attempted suicide, according to the 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health.

Nearly 20 percent (8.9 million) of adults with mental illness in the past year also had a substance abuse disorder, the report found. The rate was 25.7 percent for those with a serious mental illness -- about four times higher than the rate of 6.5 percent among people without a serious mental illness.

So 20% of Americans should be denied their 2nd Amendment rights?

 

[Zoogster]

As others have covered the definition is too broad, and the protections and level of due process too minimal.

Every accused criminal gets a jury trial where they are innocent until proven guilty if they opt for one.
There is protections, protections intentionally greater than in most of the world, which is one of the defining characteristics of the United States.

Yet someone determined to have a mental illness by a single person has what protections?
They lose their rights at the whim of an individual or court, with minimal protections on their side.


I know in many areas any child with behavior problems is diagnosed with some sort of mental illness, it frees up funding for extra resources and/or medication. They may just be misbehaving, but you can certainly find a label that creates a treatable condition.

Psychology is a highly discretionary field, and also one that attempts to find a problem in order to have something to treat.
According to http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos056.htm
34% are also self employed. They make a living diagnosing and treating conditions. Now imagine some working for the courts, taking ques on what to determine someone has, and satisfying the desires of the court. As a result being asked by the court to do future work. You could easily find situations, especially in places like say very anti-gun San Francisco, where they remove firearms from much of the population processed through the court.

As phoglund mentions:

"According to the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), approximately 26 percent of American adults over the age of 18 suffer from some type of diagnosable mental disorder in a given year*."

That 26% is just in a given year, that means if you take a 10+ year period it would be an even higher overall number. How much of the population should not be protected by the bill of rights without demonstrating any criminal action?

Then consider the opinions of psychologists in different parts of the country. What some consider abnormal and a sign of mental illness may be a cultural norm in another part of the country.
There is certainly those that feel just someone excessively interested in firearms or weapons has a mental illness.
Someone has a large collection of firearms? Must be an underlying mental illness. Why does the nutjob have so many weapons?
Are they delusional, do they think governments might do bad things? (Founders logic for the 2nd Amendment) Are they paranoid? Do they think there is an excessive risk from someone harming them? (self defense) What mental illness is causing this accumulation of weapons.
There would be plenty of available diagnosis to make of if someone was so inclined.


Such a discretionary field should not be too readily given legal power and allowed to sidestep all the protections we intentionally put into the criminal justice system, in order to remove rights of people who have committed no crimes.

 

[Zundfolge]

The problem is that when one says "do you want people with mental health issues to own firearms" we all hear you asking "do you want to allow crazy murderers to own guns?" but ends up with "lets outlaw guns for odd, but harmless people" and then all of the sudden you find yourself labeled as "odd but harmless".

The simple fact is that the definition of "mental illness" shifts around too much and often for reasons that have nothing to do with health or safety.

Keep in mind that prior to 1974 homosexuality was listed in the DSM-II.

What happens if they declare religious belief a mental illness? Or interest in hunting? Or membership in the NRA?


The simple fact is that every law designed to keep bad or otherwise unfit people from possessing firearms does nothing but make it harder for decent, law abiding folk to buy or own guns and makes it harder for those licensed to sell them to engage in their business. It does nothing to stop said bad or otherwise unfit people from buying guns from the trunks of cars behind bars in the "bad part of town".

 

[DammitBoy]

Upfront Opinion: I don't think that anyone should be prohibited from owning firearms.

Not even violent felons or drug addicts?

 

[Danb1215]

Not even violent felons or drug addicts?

Correct. I can at least see the albeit poorly formed argument for wanting so called "violent felons" from having guns but "drug addicts", really? What does that even mean? A tiny percentage of people "addicted" (hilariously broad term) to drugs are dangerous in any way.

 

[Zundfolge]

Not even violent felons or drug addicts?

There is not a single law on the books right now that will prevent a violent, drug addicted felon from purchasing and possessing a firearm if he wants one.

Laws that ban possession of ANYTHING don't prevent possession, they simply punish it.

Laws are not magic force fields.

I would rather live in a world where anyone and everyone had the absolute right legally posses and carry a firearm than one where the state regulates gun ownership since such regulation ONLY effects the law abiding and not the criminal. Thus some good people are disarmed to their own detriment in the futile pursuit of disarming the badguys.


I guess my point is that the violent felons and the drug addicts already have guns (if they want them) and no law is going to stop them.

 

[agd1953]

The 2nd amendment to our constitution has no excepts in it.

 

[rellascout]

The 2nd amendment to our constitution has no excepts in it.

No Excepts... You should copywrite that..... LOL

 

[pacerdude]

I have very bad OCD, should I not be allowed to own a firearm?

As others have stated, it is a very slippery slope!

 

[Frozen North]

I guess my point is that the violent felons and the drug addicts already have guns (if they want them) and no law is going to stop them.

But the law can smack them twice as hard when they get caught.... No law, no extended sentence. It is all about giving the legal system the ability to really put the screws to the real bad guys. If a violent felon or someone who has been caught with a sack of meth is in possession of a firearm, chances are pretty good they plan to do harm with it.

If you can't stay out of jail for violence and drugs, you can defend yourself with a brick or broken bottle. You have proven yourself unfit to participate in our society as a regular citizen. If you still can't figure it out, state prison shall be your home.

Laws don't prevent actions, but they allow us to punish criminals after due process. The same logic would say that murder should be legal because the law does not stop murders.

 

[Lonestar49]

Responsiblity for lives

What do you guys think about those considered mentally ill owning firearms?

For it?

Against it?

Why?

...

I would ask the same question of how anyone would feel if their Pilot was mentally ill and about to take-off - would they board the plane knowing that..?

Let alone all the people below, under, around its flight path, no different than a car, or gun, or as mentioned, any device that "in the wrong hands" could do great harm to innocents.

You have my reason/s as to both questions.. no



Ls

 

[clutch]

So if you are a hoarder, are you mentally ill? (guns, powder, primers and ammo) How about being a Obama supporter?

How far from the norm do you have to be to be considered ill? Fascination with firearms, owning a rifle in .50 bmg, taking too many Frontsight or other classes?

How about spending more money on your gun collection each year than fixing up your home? Listening to gun related podcasts on a daily basis.

Practicing markmanship on a daily basis?

I'll take my chances and take the risks that come with freedom. Those that misuse it will sort themselves out. It may be the courts, it may be meeting another armed citizen. Some may seek out help because even some crazy people have some shreds of sanity. Help those that seek help.

Clutch

 

[HorseSoldier]

The 2nd amendment to our constitution has no excepts in it.

Um, unless you're a convicted felon. Or have a criminal history including misdemeanor domestic violence convictions. Or have been adjudicated as mentally defective in the past. Or have been dishonorably discharged from the US military. Etc etc etc.

And honestly it's hard to rationally argue that while the Framers explicitly intended to protect individual firearms ownership with the 2nd Amendment, that they did not accept that for some people -- those with a history of criminal violence, moral imbecility, seriously impairing mental health issues, etc -- that right might have to be taken away by the government for the common good.

 

[kilo729]

Um, unless you're a convicted felon. Or have a criminal history including misdemeanor domestic violence convictions. Or have been adjudicated as mentally defective in the past. Or have been dishonorably discharged from the US military. Etc etc etc.

Methinks you need to reread the 2nd amendment.

And honestly it's hard to rationally argue that while the Framers explicitly intended to protect individual firearms ownership with the 2nd Amendment, that they did not accept that for some people -- those with a history of criminal violence, moral imbecility, seriously impairing mental health issues, etc -- that right might have to be taken away by the government for the common good.

Methinks you need to reread the literature from the the founders.

 

[Frozen North]

5th amendment....

You can be deprived of life, liberty, and property by due process of law. If the law says that you commit a felony, you will be deprived of your freedom to vote and freedom to own firearms.

due process of law.... 5th amendment....

 

[LibShooter]

due process of law.... 5th amendment....

Ownership of one (and only one) class of personal property is specifically protected by the Constitution. I think "shall not be infringed" precludes "due process of law."

 

[Frozen North]

So you would support the possession of weapons by prison inmates? You can be deprived of your rights (aka: Liberty) by due process... You can have your life taken from you by due process! Yes, the government can take your property, imprison you, take your firearms, and kill you also... legally under the constitution....

 

[BaltimoreBoy]

Well let's see...

Some of you might want to check out Thomas Szasz's books like "The myth of mental Illness"

As has been pointed out, it turns out that those who are out of favor with the government often turn out to have 'mental illnesses'. Ask the residents of the former Soviet Union.

Count me among those who believe that even convicted felons should be allowed to own firearms. Why?
First: remember how many things have become 'felonious' in our out of control society.

Second: Where is a convicted felon going to live when he is released? Probably a not very nice neighborhood. The kind of neighborhood where people are assaulted. If he is out he has as much right to defend his life as anyone else.

Same thing pretty much applies to a 'mentally ill' person. If they are so out of it they are locked up - there is no problem. If they are just some 'talker' - leave 'em alone.

 

[LibShooter]

Yes, the government can take your property, imprison you, take your firearms, and kill you also... legally under the constitution....

Life, liberty, the right to vote, the right to keep and bear trans-fats or X-boxes are not specifically protected by the Constitution. Guns are.

Inmates actually in prison can have their gun rights postponed... just as your rights to speech can be postponed for a specific time or in a specific place.

To be honest, I like the idea that people suffering from certain mental illnesses and those with a history of violence are theoretically prevented from having guns. I also like the idea that very few people can have certain machine guns, powerful weapons or artillery. I just think those laws are unconstitutional.

 

[Frozen North]

I agree with you there... keeping weapons from law abiding citizens is unconstitutional. It may be cost prohibitive to own an anti-aircraft gun, but it should not be unlawful. Certain parts of NFA make owning certain arms artificially cost prohibitive.... this is a dirty trick...

Thread is slightly adrift... partially my fault... sorry...

Back to crazies and guns

 

[goon]

There are a couple problems I see with limiting the rights of "mentally ill" people to own firearms.
First, I could see this being the proverbial foot in the door that would allow the government a whole new way to step in and trample our rights. Keep shifting the definition of "mentally ill" to make it more and more restrictive and before long, how many could legally own guns?
Second, suppose you have a person who's experiencing a touch of depression or some other mental issue. He or she needs some kind of help and they know it, but because they fear the loss of their gun rights, they don't get help. IMO, no one has the right to put someone in a position like that.

 

[JerryM]

Those who are truly mentally ill should not own or use guns. If one is mentally ill, no one knows how he will act or react at any particular time.
Jerry

 

[HorseSoldier]

Ownership of one (and only one) class of personal property is specifically protected by the Constitution. I think "shall not be infringed" precludes "due process of law."

The weight of interpreted law going back to about the day after the Constitution went into effect does not support your conclusion in regards to persons who demonstrate themselves to be a risk to themselves or others because of inability or unwillingness to behave in accordance with the law.

This is why felons have their right to bear arms routinely abrogated under the law and no one has successfully challenged that under the law.

Rather like how your freedom of speech ends right before you shout fire in a crowded theater just to see people run about in a panic. It is also clearly and specifically in the Bill of Rights, and the law has routinely upheld that that right does not apply in certain contexts where its use creates a hazard to others.

Methinks you need to reread the literature from the the founders.

Really? Which Founder went on the record as saying the 2nd Amendment should be openly extended without reservation to murderers, rapists, and other known criminals who could be trusted to use their rights to victimize others?

 

[Frozen North]

Really? Which Founder went on the record as saying the 2nd Amendment should be openly extended without reservation to murderers, rapists, and other known criminals who could be trusted to use their rights to victimize others?

Exactly, thank you...

Your rights end right when you use them to infringe on the rights of others. If you use your second amendment right to terrorize others, it will be removed from you by due process of law. The second amendment was clearly spelled out because it is so critical, but that does not mean it cannot be withheld from you if you abuse it.

 

[Toforo]

What do you guys think about those considered mentally ill owning firearms?

For it?

Against it?

Why?

Who's doing the "considering" and what kind of "mental illness" is being "considered?

It's pretty well already defined on Form 4473
"f. Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution? "