baylorattorney
Member
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2011
- Messages
- 489
Very true. Mentally Ill persons need a lot more from society such as love, compassion, understanding,etc. They dont need firearms.
Mental Health and Firearms Ownership, what do you think?
- Thread starter BryanDavis
- Start date
- Status
Dr_B
member
I was loosely referring to how mentally ill individuals are handled by law enforcement around here. People can be taken into the system, not actually arrested, if they have exhibited behavior that is a danger to themselves or others. They are screened by a doctor and then detained until they have an evaluation. At that point, they are basically in the system as having "had contact" with law enforcement for mental health issues.
I don't think we ought to rush to their homes and confiscate their weapons, but we should be very wary of their possession of firearms.
How about a real example? No names, but there is a man in my town who records sermons in his trailer and leaves DVD's in apartment complexes around town. From time to time, he dresses as a woman and goes to the local bars. The police tell me he has been beaten up several times while dressed as a woman. This man is mentally ill. But he is not known to carry weapons and does not attack others. Am I OK with him owning a gun? Yes.
I'm afraid this thread isn't going to end up being very productive. Maybe I am wrong. The mentally ill need help and there are not enough resources to do that properly. We also can't go around arbitrarily stripping people's rights away. Where do we draw the line with mental illness and possession of weapons? If we create guidelines for when 2nd amendment rights are taken away due to psychological conditions, where is that threshold and who gets to make that decision? Does the state get the privilege of revoking rights from anyone the think is an enemy simply by labeling the person a threat?
archigos
Member
Homosexuality was considered a mental illness until the classification was changed by some extreme tactics. I don't consider homosexuality a condition that makes somebody dangerous with a firearm... The Pentagon only reclassified it in 2006. Are you saying we should have denied homosexuals the right to keep and bear arms until 2006? (Please don't take this as me accusing you of homophobia - my point is merely that we can't say "mental illness" makes you dangerous with firearms.)baylorattorney said:
There are still others on the list that are arguably less of a "mental illness" than that. Humans make these classifications, and they are fallible.
PTSD is a good example, should being treated for it revoke your second amendment rights?
I think not.
I think not.
AirForceShooter
Member
Never ever trust a mental health professional.
They have a tendency to impose their own opinion and morals on their patients.
All LEO organizations use the mental health system to some degree to lock up people they can't arrest but want off the street.
AFS
They have a tendency to impose their own opinion and morals on their patients.
All LEO organizations use the mental health system to some degree to lock up people they can't arrest but want off the street.
AFS
JohnBT
Member
Here is an alphabetical list of the mental health diagnoses listed in the DSM-IV manual.
DSM = Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition, is a manual published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA)
www.dr-bob.org/tips/dsm4a.html
It's a huge freaking list that contains all sorts of things the average person would not consider a mental illness.
JT
DSM = Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition, is a manual published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA)
www.dr-bob.org/tips/dsm4a.html
It's a huge freaking list that contains all sorts of things the average person would not consider a mental illness.
JT
Chris Rhines
Member
Back in junior high school, I read the autobiography of Viktor Belenko, the Soviet Mig-25 pilot who defected to the U.S. back in 1976.
One of the things that stuck with me about that book, was the flagrant way in which the CCCP used the Soviet mental health system to suppress dissent, eliminate political and personal competition, and generally muck about with peoples lives.
I don't want to see that stuff where I live.
-C
One of the things that stuck with me about that book, was the flagrant way in which the CCCP used the Soviet mental health system to suppress dissent, eliminate political and personal competition, and generally muck about with peoples lives.
I don't want to see that stuff where I live.
-C
JohnBT
Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnBT
"The problem is that when most people think about mental illness they picture a person ranting, raving, roaming the streets and generally being nuts.
____________
I dont think this is true at all, esp not here on the board nor as expressed in this thread. It is all those other things: depression, addiction, bi-polar, ADD *or under the influence of drugs prescribed for such* that are much more at issue, much more into gray areas. - you
____________
Maybe it's the population I've worked with for nearly 40 years, but I've encountered numerous people with the diagnoses you've listed and some of them were certainly ranting and raving and not making use of any common sense. Some of them were roaming the streets. Having access to their medical records, it's been an eye-opener to see all of the different diagnoses one person can accummulate from different psychiatrists over the years. It's frequently not a cut and dried situation and it is hard to diagnose a mental illness because there is no test for it.
Read the DSM-IV and see how similar many of the listings are when it comes to qualifying for a diagnosis.
Originally Posted by JohnBT
"The problem is that when most people think about mental illness they picture a person ranting, raving, roaming the streets and generally being nuts.
____________
I dont think this is true at all, esp not here on the board nor as expressed in this thread. It is all those other things: depression, addiction, bi-polar, ADD *or under the influence of drugs prescribed for such* that are much more at issue, much more into gray areas. - you
____________
Maybe it's the population I've worked with for nearly 40 years, but I've encountered numerous people with the diagnoses you've listed and some of them were certainly ranting and raving and not making use of any common sense. Some of them were roaming the streets. Having access to their medical records, it's been an eye-opener to see all of the different diagnoses one person can accummulate from different psychiatrists over the years. It's frequently not a cut and dried situation and it is hard to diagnose a mental illness because there is no test for it.
Read the DSM-IV and see how similar many of the listings are when it comes to qualifying for a diagnosis.
wally
Member
The major issue in metal health treatment is the stigma attached to it. Losing rights because of getting it sure won't help!
Until it reaches the level of court ordered commitment with due process protections, best not give up any rights.
That said, while there certainly have been some high profile situations where the mental health/legal system has failed, but using this to restrict rights is wrong.
Until it reaches the level of court ordered commitment with due process protections, best not give up any rights.
That said, while there certainly have been some high profile situations where the mental health/legal system has failed, but using this to restrict rights is wrong.
Dr. Rob said:
Exactly!
People shouldn't have to fear losing their rights if they have a legitimimate mental illness and need help.
I would NEVER support a blanket restriction on the right of a mentally ill person to own a gun. It's just too dangerous for their rights and mine and yours.
baylorattorney said:
Replace "Mentally Ill persons" with "People" and see how much you like it when the proverbial gun is pointed in your direction.
There are many who'd see us all disarmed in half a second if they could. According to them, we'd all be safer without guns. Obviously you and I would disagree with them. Since I enjoy my rights, I reject on principle any measure that would deprive other people of their rights without just cause. Simply being labeled "mentally ill," which could cover an incredible array of issues that probably wouldn't pose a threat to anyone, isn't a good enough reason.
Last edited:
SharpsDressedMan
member
At the risk of repeating myself, read post #73 again, take it to heart, and warn everyone else. The situation isn't going to get any better, and it's going downhill fast.
"Innocent Until Proven Guilty". That is the law of the land. Are we to be punished for what we might do? Is Thought Crime now a legitimate reason for prosecution? We are at liberty to make choices. That means we are accountable for those choices and accept the consequences regardless of our state of mind. That's what tempers our choices, not the fear of what we might do, but the consequences of the choices we do make.
Taking away the liberty of someone just because they are mentally ill is the mindset of the merciless totalitarian or of those who live in fear of the choices another will make or the fear of the choices they themselves will make
Taking away the liberty of someone just because they are mentally ill is the mindset of the merciless totalitarian or of those who live in fear of the choices another will make or the fear of the choices they themselves will make
Tim the student
Member
Source? Any way to substantiate that?
Yesterday, I shot small bore prone It was hot as heck, at least ninety degrees. All the competitors wore gloves, sweat shirts, and heavy jackets while laying in the sun.
I told them they were all crazy.
And they don't disagree.
Guess that is the end of competitive shooting because the serious ones are all lunatics.
I told them they were all crazy.
And they don't disagree.
Guess that is the end of competitive shooting because the serious ones are all lunatics.
SharpsDressedMan
member
I like your reasoning.
Pretty soon, as someone in the military qualifies as a sniper, they will lock him up permanently. Seems these guys voluntarily (how crazy is that?) endure all kinds of hardships, gruelling physical demands, lying perfectly still in the worst of extreme climates, letting mosquitoes, ants, and every other nasty bug bite them without flinching, and then commit themselves to being pathological enough to kill someone they don't even know, without emotion or remorse. As soon as they are deemed "quailified" to be snipers, they could also be declared "pathological killers who are a danger to society, with no hope of rehabilitation", and locked up forever.
Pretty soon, as someone in the military qualifies as a sniper, they will lock him up permanently. Seems these guys voluntarily (how crazy is that?) endure all kinds of hardships, gruelling physical demands, lying perfectly still in the worst of extreme climates, letting mosquitoes, ants, and every other nasty bug bite them without flinching, and then commit themselves to being pathological enough to kill someone they don't even know, without emotion or remorse. As soon as they are deemed "quailified" to be snipers, they could also be declared "pathological killers who are a danger to society, with no hope of rehabilitation", and locked up forever. 
1stmarine
Member
Fiearms and mentally unstable folks do not mix.
Same thing with piloting a plane, operating a chemical plant and thousands of many other things.
Same thing with piloting a plane, operating a chemical plant and thousands of many other things.
leadcounsel
member
People should only become a prohibited person if they DEMONSTRATE ACTUAL significant violent behavior or a pattern of violent behavior or make legitmate believable statements regarding violent behavior.
I do not think that someone with mental health issues, non-violent as they are, should be prohibited. I also do not think that non-violent felons should be prohibited persons, and also believe that domestic violence is NOT satisfactory to prohibit a person.
The two categories should be REAL violent mental health folks and felons. None of this pseudo, end-around the 2A, mental health or DV people. That my friend is a big slippery slope, and nearly anyone with a momentary lapse of judgement or extremely stressful situation can suddenly 'qualify' for membership to the prohibited person club.
A series of events could lead just about anyone to be referred to a therapist or court ordered mental institution or cause a large enough non-violent fight with a significant other and once the .gov gets involved you are in real jeapardy of losing your 2A. Something we ought to not take lightly.
I do not think that someone with mental health issues, non-violent as they are, should be prohibited. I also do not think that non-violent felons should be prohibited persons, and also believe that domestic violence is NOT satisfactory to prohibit a person.
The two categories should be REAL violent mental health folks and felons. None of this pseudo, end-around the 2A, mental health or DV people. That my friend is a big slippery slope, and nearly anyone with a momentary lapse of judgement or extremely stressful situation can suddenly 'qualify' for membership to the prohibited person club.
A series of events could lead just about anyone to be referred to a therapist or court ordered mental institution or cause a large enough non-violent fight with a significant other and once the .gov gets involved you are in real jeapardy of losing your 2A. Something we ought to not take lightly.
Taurus 66
Member
Who decides who is mentally ill and to what level or degree? Is there any human being alive today "qualified"?!
Do pychiatrists make that decision? The problem with them is that they are usually more whacked out then their patients. What do you think would happen to you over time if you had to get inside every patient of your's head, understand the mechanics that makes 'em tick, then find a solution to it all? Don't you think that no matter how much you tried to purge the filth from your inner mind some residue would still linger around to re-infect you?
Eventually you will end up leaving the profession or stay on only to hop along the same happy trail of meds you prescribe your patients. It's either that or commit suicide.
Do pychiatrists make that decision? The problem with them is that they are usually more whacked out then their patients. What do you think would happen to you over time if you had to get inside every patient of your's head, understand the mechanics that makes 'em tick, then find a solution to it all? Don't you think that no matter how much you tried to purge the filth from your inner mind some residue would still linger around to re-infect you?
Eventually you will end up leaving the profession or stay on only to hop along the same happy trail of meds you prescribe your patients. It's either that or commit suicide.
1stmarine
Member
I agree with you "Demonstrate" but that is the problem right?
first everyone with a serious problem needed to be accounted for and they are not. And also not only violent people can be at risk but people with profound cognitive disabilities, at the risk of seizures or simply cannot differentiate from right or wrong.
All very complex. I think that we all agree if someone is known to have profound mental issues then that person should not be authorized to handle a firearm for his/her safety first and the others around too. Just the same way they should not be allowed to drive a bus, or operate heavy machinery, or work in a nuclear plant or pilot a plane, etc.....
I think very easy to understand.
The problem is the system is not there, will not be there for a long time and might not be a 100% objective and effective system due to many factors.
This has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment and everything to do with civil responsibility and common sense.
first everyone with a serious problem needed to be accounted for and they are not. And also not only violent people can be at risk but people with profound cognitive disabilities, at the risk of seizures or simply cannot differentiate from right or wrong.
All very complex. I think that we all agree if someone is known to have profound mental issues then that person should not be authorized to handle a firearm for his/her safety first and the others around too. Just the same way they should not be allowed to drive a bus, or operate heavy machinery, or work in a nuclear plant or pilot a plane, etc.....
I think very easy to understand.
The problem is the system is not there, will not be there for a long time and might not be a 100% objective and effective system due to many factors.
This has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment and everything to do with civil responsibility and common sense.
^ "I think we all agree" ^
I absolutely don't agree, who gets to make all of these judgment calls that you claim are imperative?
Edit: And please explain to me how you're demand that we legislate away the ability for people to own firearms has nothing to do with the second amendment?
I absolutely don't agree, who gets to make all of these judgment calls that you claim are imperative?
Edit: And please explain to me how you're demand that we legislate away the ability for people to own firearms has nothing to do with the second amendment?
1stmarine
Member
Nobody is loosing any rights as citizens, simply we are protecting those that cannot protect themselves from harming themselves or others.
If we keep someone that had gone crazy sedated and/or under supervision in hospital so they do not jump out the window, are we infringing on the rights of that person?
Do you suggest we close all mental institutions and release everyone due to fears that we might be infringing on the 1st amendment?
come on?!!!
If we keep someone that had gone crazy sedated and/or under supervision in hospital so they do not jump out the window, are we infringing on the rights of that person?
Do you suggest we close all mental institutions and release everyone due to fears that we might be infringing on the 1st amendment?
come on?!!!
Taurus 66
Member
Like I previously said - psychiatrists first.
I could definitely argue that its someones right to jump out a window if that's what they want.
And if I were going to argue for the closure of mental institutions (which is not what I'm doing in this thread) it wouldn't be on 1st amendment grounds, 5th and 6th for sure though.
But that isn't what this thread is about. The problem is many here constantly say that they support THE right to keep and bear arms but when it comes down to it they really only support THEIR right to keep and bear arms. So long as they are allowed to have whatever type of firearms they want they don't really care about anybody else. Like the old timers on the trap line wondering why someone "needs" an AR, or like half the members on this board that think only criminals or terrorists or whatever else would want Full auto. That logic has found its way into this thread, of course we should keep guns out of the hands of the "mentally ill" whatever that ridiculous umbrella term means. I mean why not if you don't fall into this category how could such a law hurt you? In order to support any kind of real freedom, you're going to have to tolerate things that you don't necessarily love.
I honestly believe that it is the individual right of every person, not just me, or anyone other specific person or group, to have and carry weapons for self defense. No if, and, but, or except.
And if I were going to argue for the closure of mental institutions (which is not what I'm doing in this thread) it wouldn't be on 1st amendment grounds, 5th and 6th for sure though.
But that isn't what this thread is about. The problem is many here constantly say that they support THE right to keep and bear arms but when it comes down to it they really only support THEIR right to keep and bear arms. So long as they are allowed to have whatever type of firearms they want they don't really care about anybody else. Like the old timers on the trap line wondering why someone "needs" an AR, or like half the members on this board that think only criminals or terrorists or whatever else would want Full auto. That logic has found its way into this thread, of course we should keep guns out of the hands of the "mentally ill" whatever that ridiculous umbrella term means. I mean why not if you don't fall into this category how could such a law hurt you? In order to support any kind of real freedom, you're going to have to tolerate things that you don't necessarily love.
I honestly believe that it is the individual right of every person, not just me, or anyone other specific person or group, to have and carry weapons for self defense. No if, and, but, or except.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
