The Great Debate: The Mentally Ill and Guns

[Neo-Luddite]

The definitions of mental illness are socially constructed, subject to change and laid down in the DSM which is revised every so often by the APA. The APA garners more status, wealth, and power as an organization by defining ever new types of mental illness. The more patients, the better!

Don't get me wrong, there are many fine metal health practioners who are dediacted and sincere--but I wouldn't trust the APA as far as I could throw it.

It is ALWAYS telling to remember that homosexuality was listed as a mental illness in that publication until the mid 70's.

We need to be careful to NOT throw the mentally ill under the bus--because we will all surely be catagorized if trend scontinue (remeber they are starting to list owning guns as a SYMPTOM of some mental illnesses--like PTSD).

 

[sm]

Neo-Luddite,

Great post and I agree.

 

[wbh]

If one is competant to manage his affairs, he is competent to possess a gun, unless he has *committed a crime* that limits his rights.

and if one takes a behavioral modifying drug how competant is one to manage one's affairs? Similar to the question on the 4473 that asks if you are a user of narcotics or marijuana. Behavioral modifying. The extent of the modification depends on the individual, which is why we should not take guns away from people on these meds, however it would seem a plausible reason to be adjudicated mentally ill.

I think we agree on the fact that their guns shouldn't be taken away, which is the important thing. We may differ on the smaller issues here and may have to just agree to disagree

 

[stevereno1]

The mentally ill should not handle knives, inkpens, lamps, ceramic ducks, tire irons, shoelaces, sticks, rocks, bikes, bigwheels, bird feeders, oven mitts, fishing poles, dryer sheets, old boots, T.V.'s, and water balloons. If they are a threat to themselves and/or others, they need to be kept on a VERY short leash, or straight up locked up. But they should NEVER,-EVER have access to a firearm, no matter what drug they take, EVER!

 

[.cheese.]

however it would seem a plausible reason to be adjudicated mentally ill.

so are you implying that you believe that any person who has taken low doses of anti-depressants should be adjudicated as mentally ill?

Plenty of drugs can have behavior modifying effects and aren't even being used for those effects. What about people who take drugs like Ativan for epilepsy? Those drugs also have strong anti-anxiety effects (and are controlled substances). So now we're classifying those people as mentally ill as well. Some people take such medications for irritable bowel syndrome as well. Now some guy who has the runs is mentally ill because the medication he takes has a side effect of anti-anxiety?

Surely you'd like to rethink this.

There are some studies that are now linking depression to inflammatory processes, so there might come a day that anti-inflammatory type drugs would be used to treat depression. If that happens, those same drugs would be used for many other purposes as well such as rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn's disease Colitis and all other forms of inflammatory bowel disease, breathing difficulties, and much more. How would you treat this?

The mentally ill should not handle knives, inkpens, lamps, ceramic ducks, tire irons, shoelaces, sticks, rocks, bikes, bigwheels, bird feeders, oven mitts, fishing poles, dryer sheets, old boots, T.V.'s, and water balloons. If they are a threat to themselves and/or others, they need to be kept on a VERY short leash, or straight up locked up. But they should NEVER,-EVER have access to a firearm, no matter what drug they take, EVER!

and how do you define mentally ill? Or maybe you're just being sarcastic and I missed it.

 

[bloodedsky]

I think drunken people are horrendously dangerous around guns. Should we restrict people's intake of alcohol then?

There really isn't a clear way to determine if someone is unqualified to possess firearms, as unattractive a reality as that is. My SO rightly says that "If they head down to the 7-11 and start capping innocents, then they might be a problem," meaning that you can't really tell that someone shouldn't be around guns until s/he abuses the privilege.

I hate to draw such a strong parallel, but the Nazi party divided people into "groups" and then stripped their rights away--the mentally ill included. It's nothing short of ugly, this categorization of people.

 

[Guitargod1985]

and if one takes a behavioral modifying drug how competant is one to manage one's affairs? Similar to the question on the 4473 that asks if you are a user of narcotics or marijuana.

I'm calling BS on this one. I happen to know from personal experience. Marijuana (for me at least) is not a behavior altering substance. I was a major pothead for three years. For most of that time the amount of times a day I smoked exceeded the number of fingers I have. Guess what? I went to work EVERY day. I even put in overtime most weeks. I paid my rent early every single month. At one point I paid two months in advance. I never got into a violent confrontation with anyone and never stole anything. Weird, huh? It's awkward shattering stereotypes.

I've also been on more prescription drugs than I could name. Haven't taken any since I was eighteen (five years ago). Guess what? I'm stable. I've held a job without problems. I've gone to school and earned straight As. I have a license to carry and plenty of guns. Am I mentally unfit to possess a firearm? Doubtful. If five years go by without any medication and none of the "illnesses" you were diagnosed with manifest themselves, it is my opinion you're in decent shape. I've been told I was bipolar, had ADHD, and had OCD. Considering I was on meds since I was SEVEN years of age, I think the drugs may have had more to do with any symptoms than any honest clinical diagnosis.

I guess I can see where you are coming from if I were to put myself in your shoes. You've probably not been forced by your parents to take medication for eleven years of your life. Your perspective is most likely a product of your own experience, just as mine is.

Consider this: Short of fighting with my brother when we were kids, I have never struck anyone, nor committed any violent crime, nor threatened anyone with violence. I am the type of person that would give the shirt off his back for a friend in need. I would not do something to another person that I would not want done to me. Perhaps I'm more sensitive to this issue than most because I've been labeled all of my life. But before you go judging others based on what kind of pill they took or what they smoked, why don't you instead focus on character, which is a distinctly separate, yet more significant, element of a person's nature. I'm not trying to sound like a d**|< or anything, just giving you something to thin about.

There really isn't a clear way to determine if someone is unqualified to possess firearms, as unattractive a reality as that is. My SO rightly says that "If they head down to the 7-11 and start capping innocents, then they might be a problem," meaning that you can't really tell that someone shouldn't be around guns until s/he abuses the privilege.

Amen, bro.

 

[BridgeWalker]

and if one takes a behavioral modifying drug how competant is one to manage one's affairs? Similar to the question on the 4473 that asks if you are a user of narcotics or marijuana. Behavioral modifying. The extent of the modification depends on the individual, which is why we should not take guns away from people on these meds, however it would seem a plausible reason to be adjudicated mentally ill.

People are not adjudicated mentally ill. They are adjudicated mentally incompetent or mentally defective. I believe the important distinction on the 4473 is that those substances are *illegal* and behavior modifying.

I think we agree on the fact that their guns shouldn't be taken away, which is the important thing. We may differ on the smaller issues here and may have to just agree to disagree

Well, considering that you just blithely destroyed MY rtkba, about as far as I'll go is agreeing that you're ignorant of the issues.

Yeah, I took some behavior modifying drugs several years back. You think that I should have been subject to adjudication because of that? Sorry, *that* is insane, not me. As it has stood for years, and continues to until the new laws get implemented, once one is on the list, one doesn't get off the list. And so, thanks. You've just decided that I shouldn't have guns.

And this is EXACTLY what I was talking about in my lengthy post on the first page of this thread: gun owners who don't know jack about mental illness or its treatment and so play straight into the hands of those who would take away our rights. Well, my rights anyway. Because I took a legally prescribed medication seven years ago.

No, I am certainly not gonna agree to disagree. I am going to rail as long and as loud as I have to against people who are all for protecting certain people's gun rights. Because what you just said *does* amount to disarming citizens who have mental illness. Well, and preventing them from having little things like bank accounts or drivers licenses. But hey, they took a behavior altering medication. Strip them of all their rights of self-determination! Give them a guardian! Make them wards of the State!

Please. Get informed.

 

[Zoogster]

Nobody should be denied thier rights based on something they may do in the future, they should be judged based on what they have and are doing.

The definitions of mental illness are socially constructed, subject to change and laid down in the DSM which is revised every so often by the APA. The APA garners more status, wealth, and power as an organization by defining ever new types of mental illness. The more patients, the better!

Don't get me wrong, there are many fine metal health practioners who are dediacted and sincere--but I wouldn't trust the APA as far as I could throw it.

It is ALWAYS telling to remember that homosexuality was listed as a mental illness in that publication until the mid 70's.

We need to be careful to NOT throw the mentally ill under the bus--because we will all surely be catagorized if trend scontinue (remeber they are starting to list owning guns as a SYMPTOM of some mental illnesses--like PTSD).

That is absolutely correct. If you ever find yourself in college around those studying in such a field, or have a family member in college studying to be psychiatrist or something similar you will find they begin to diagnos everyone and anyone around them, even themselves with various things.

They can recognize a handful of disorders in any given person if given it as homework, or just to amuse themselves.
There is not a person alive you cannot apply a "mental disease" label to. It really is that easy.


Thier oversight in determining who retained rights and who lost them would be completely discretionary since anyone could be diagnosed with something at will.
It would just be a matter of who they thought should be diagnosed, or denied rights. A discretionary line in the sand which could change and would vary from one psychiatrist to the other.
It would essentialy turn psychiatrists into judges and juries over fundemental rights, punishing them for crimes they have not or may never commit.

I for one think it would be a very serious step backwards in society when people in lab coats hold everyone's rights in thier hands, and people can be denied rights simply because someone decides to "deem them unfit/unsafe" when they have commited no crimes and harmed nobody.
It would also allow the courts to remove rights for more minor offenses at will, by ordering psychiatric evaluations done by physicians that usualy act in accordance with the will of the court.
That is essentialy removing society's rights and making thought crimes.

 

[kd7nqb]

There is a huge difference between somebody who has clinical depression and someone with something like schizophrenia. I am pretty much ok with just about everybody owning guns but I also see a line that needs to be drawn. I like the motor vehicle "test" if you loose your DL for an incident you loose you CCW its no perfect but its pretty good.

I have family members with Autism who have been known to have some violent outburst and lapses in judgment. Right now I still will let him shoot with me and such but there have been bad days where I decide its not a good idea, not because I fear that he will hurt somebody but because I know either way it wont be an enjoyable experience.

 

[chris in va]

Having lived with a depressive person for ~10 years, I'm frankly undecided on the issue.

The doctors keep throwing medications at her. Some help, some don't. Currently she's going through a LOT of external crap in her life and it's taking a large toll on her well being.

Accordingly I have since made sure to lock up my firearms except for the one I wear. Previously I made sure to leave a 38 in the drawer when I wasn't around, no more.

BTW she has not been deemed a hazard to herself or others, nor does she have a record of adjudicative inpatient treatment, just voluntary for a week. No felonies.

 

[chris in va]

and how do you define mentally ill? Or maybe you're just being sarcastic and I missed it.

cheese, he was being sarcastic.

 

[.cheese.]

People are not adjudicated mentally ill. They are adjudicated mentally incompetent or mentally defective. I believe the important distinction on the 4473 is that those substances are *illegal* and behavior modifying.

I wasn't going to argue that point with him, but I'm glad you mentioned it.

cheese, he was being sarcastic.

It's so tough to tell on forums sometimes.

 

[Walkalong]

They love for us to point fingers at others. That is a large part of their game plan. If we are pointing our finger at another, someone is likely pointing their finger at us. That is the kind of culture they foster, much like Hitler and his culture of turning your neighbor in.

 

[BridgeWalker]

Having lived with a depressive person for ~10 years, I'm frankly undecided on the issue.

Having been a depressive person for 10+ years, I'm frankly astonished that you think you might have a right to decide what I should be able to legally own.

Accordingly I have since made sure to lock up my firearms except for the one I wear. Previously I made sure to leave a 38 in the drawer when I wasn't around, no more.

It sounds like you have found your solution. Family and friends are the safety net, not government. Family and friends know the situation and can react accordingly. The government, well, it can't do that.

 

[Neo-Luddite]

I'm calling BS on this one. I happen to know from personal experience. Marijuana (for me at least) is not a behavior altering substance.


For SOME people it MOST CERTAINLY is. From the way you describe your time as a self-described 'pot head', your work ethic was exceptional and your judgment not altered. For some people marijuana is VERY dangerous--esepcially if they have mental health issues or are using it to self-medicate or in combination with other substances--legal or illegal I won't elaborate further, but I know this from my own personal experiences as well.

A lot of younger guys, teenagers, read THR. I am by no means a prohibitionist about the use of Marijuana or anything else for that matter--but I would advise extreme caution. Pot is also illegal in most places and being caught with it may close off employment opportunities and (often) your gun rights depending on the state.

 

[WayneConrad]

It's an easy line to draw:

You draw the line where someone needs to be involuntarily committed.

Out on your own? All rights.

Ward of the state? Some or all rights removed.

Piece o' cake.

Want to take away rights? Better take away physical freedom as well.

This rule works for removing gun or voting rights from ex cons as well, friends. Want to keep felons from having guns? Better keep 'em behind bars. Want to let 'em loose? Don't do that unless you can trust them with guns and trust them to vote and trust them to be next door to your little girl.

Simple stuff.

There is an economic side to this. When you permit the state to restrict the rights of people "on the cheap," without the attendent cost of feeding and housing them, you make it possible for them to restrict the rights of vast numbers of people. Are there really vast numbers of us that need to have our rights restricted? So many of us that are untrustworthy? I don't think so. Do you? So don't make it economically possible. It doesn't make sense. Don't give the state the tools. Make it economically and legally hard for the state to restrict someone's rights, whether it's because they commited a crime or went loco.

 

[kludge]

The fact the we were all (or mostly all) raised by parents means that any shrink willing to charge us three bills an hour will find something wrong with our phyche. From there everything is a slippery slope.

As a parent of five, none of my children react the same to stimuli (discipline included). You have to learn about each child as they grow and mature, and hope you didn't screw up to badly.

 

[Green Lantern]

People who have no personal experience with mental illness sometimes assume that it necessarily means that a person is delusional, paranoid or otherwise out of touch with reality. This is not true. By far, the most common mental illnesses are depression and anxiety disorders, which rarely affect a person's perception of reality.

There's no reason why the great majority of people with mental illness cannot be trusted with a deadly weapon.

+1!

America would be a much, much safer country if we eliminated ANY need whatsoever to deny guns to felons or people that have had mental illnesses - because if the ones that were really dangerous were kept off the streets (in prison, hospitals, whatever)...then we'd be safer all around!

I have a story that hits close to home for local people to make the point. A murderer served 20 years of a "life" sentence and was paroled here recently. He didn't attempt to get a gun by any means, illegal or legal. But he DID literally break a young woman's face at a party for a perceived insult...!

So, what would have made HER safer? His being free but unable to legally buy a gun? OR, keeping his worthless, violent hide behind bars where it belonged?

 

[Guitargod1985]

So, what would have made HER safer? His being free but unable to legally buy a gun? OR, keeping his worthless, violent hide behind bars where it belonged?

I'm in agreement with you there. If someone is convicted of murder, I don't see why they should EVER be allowed to walk free again.

The problem I have is that some people advocate the government having the ability to revoke firearm rights (or other rights) from someone with a perceived mental illness when that person has clearly committed no crime.

 

[bluestarlizzard]

my take on the issue at hand.

i don't like the thought of crazy people with guns, but in a realistic world that almost impossible to define.

personally, i was diagnised with major depression (i.e. i was sucidial) when i was 14. i spent time in a mental ward. i was diagnoised with A.D.D. when i was 17. if i went to a shrink right now i would, he would probably have a feild day with me.
some of the conciling worked (a little) and the drugs i refused to take.
despite this i never thought to use a gun to engage in a criminal act.

now when it comes to the potential laws on the subject. if you can barley define it then it can't be effective. if it can't be effective then there is no point. even if you do manage to define it, you will effectivly eliminate gun ownership from a large portion of people who technically fall under the definition, but do not pose a threat.
and finally, (this is my biggest worry about such laws) there is a major likleyhood that such laws would deter gun owners from seeking help should they need it, out of fear of losing their rights. i imagine that that would pose an even bigger threat then what we face already.

 

[JKimball]

I agree with those that believe the government shouldn't be making laws to infringe the RTKBA of "mentally ill" people. But I can see the reasoning behind not allowing people to own guns if their history has demonstrated that they act out violently and are truly mentally incompetent and would most likely be a danger if they had firearms.

I am also in the camp with those that recognize that prescription psychotropic drugs tend to be a very common element in the shooting spree/suicide cases we hear about. I recognize that these cases represent a tiny percentage of people that use these drugs, but it is still disturbing to see how high the percentage of these drugs being a factor is.

We recognize that mixing guns with alcohol and/or other illegal drugs is a recipe for trouble. Is it really such a stretch to suppose that prescription drugs that are designed to affect the way our brains think could also have side effects that are detrimental to our judgement?

I think any gun owner with a mental illness who decides to take prescription medication needs to be on their guard to recognize dangerous thought processes and deal with them appropriately. Even if it means locking up the guns.

 

[rainbowbob]

This probably isn't what most of you here are looking for to bolster your position - but it is a facet of mental illness that must be taken into consideration in any discussion about mental illness and gun rights. Notice that in this and other similar stories on their website, guns are not blamed for these tragedies - untreated mental illness is. For more information, please visit the Treatment Advocacy Center website at www.TreatmentAdvocacyCenter.org

PASADENA STAR NEWS (CA), February 29, 2008

HELP FOR THE MENTALLY ILL

LAST April 16 at Virginia Tech University, mentally ill student Seung-Hui Cho went on a shooting rampage killing 32 people and himself. This past Valentine's Day, Stephen Kazmierczak killed five people then himself inside a Northern Illinois University lecture hall not long after he stopped taking his medication. In Baldwin Park, a 28-year-old self-described mentally disturbed man shot and killed his mother and then walked into his neighbors' house and fatally shot two people inside, including a 4-year-old girl.

These and other rampage shootings are tied together by a common denominator: shooters who are mentally ill and refuse treatment or stop taking their medication.

Monday night's rampage in a quiet Baldwin Park neighborhood prompted longtime mental health advocate Dolores Encinas of West Covina to say in a letter to our newspapers: "These unnecessary killings have got to stop!" A similar incident in New York moved Dr. E. Fuller Torrey to write in an op-ed in the New York Post: "We know what to do, of course. Most individuals like (mentally ill shooter David Tarloff in New York) do very well if they are properly followed up and treated."
Torrey, president of the Treatment Advocacy Center and an expert on the country's mental health treatment issues, said every America shares in the blame for not demanding a mental health system that works. Until we hold "hospital and mental-health accountable ... each mind-numbing tragedy will keep on being followed by another," he wrote.

We know what to do. We just need the will to do it.

Because getting people the help they need, and the follow-up treatment to make sure they stay on their medication, takes money, coordination and can collide with civil rights.

I was the lead investigator on a clinical trial at Stanford involving insight and awareness of illness in persons with those serious mental illnesses that include acute psychotic symptoms.

Note that I am not talking here about persons with PTSD, anorexia, A.D.D, moderate depression, Ausberger's syndrome, etc, etc. I'm talking specifically about acute psychosis.

In addition, I am the father of a young (31) man with a serious mental illness. He is a loving, intelligent, talented, non-violent person. Within weeks of discontinuing his meds, he becomes acutely psychotic and delusional.

Because the onset of his illness was at the age of 15, he has never had a driver's license, and he has never attempted to obtain one. He has also never had a firearm, nor has he attempted to obtain one of those.

I think any gun owner with a mental illness who decides to take prescription medication needs to be on their guard to recognize dangerous thought processes and deal with them appropriately. Even if it means locking up the guns.

He is stable now, and has been for a couple of years. He could probably safely drive and own a firearm - when he is complying with treatment and stable. But, like more than 50% of persons with psychotic illnesses, he has very little insight or awareness of his illness, because the organ that we use to asses ourselves is the very organ that is impaired - his brain.

The very nature of this imairment makes it impossible to "recognize dangerous thought processes and deal with them appropriately" - as so many here have suggested in one way or another. That inability is what serious mental illness is by definition.

As a result, he often stops taking his meds for one reason or another every couple of years. This may be because he convinces himself he isn't sick and doesn't need them (he does!) - or because he doesn't like the side-effects (and they do suck!).

Whatever the reason, the result is always the same: acute psychosis and paranoid delusions.

For these reasons, I don't think it would ever be safe to trust him with a driver's license, or a firearm. And there are many thousands of good people like him.

 

[drphil]

I think attempting to legislate who is sane and who isn’t is a very challenging thing to do. Certain topics are just too complex to legislate and should be left alone.

When it comes to owning firearms, I am willing to error on the side of freedom and just let everyone have/carry a gun. Felons and the mentally ill should be allowed to own/carry firearms. If you want to kill somebody, you will, either with a gun, bat, car, ax, chemicals, etc. As long as I am not denied the ability to defend myself, I don’t care what others do, own, or carry.

Plus, when you start using medical records against people, they will be less likely to get help and society will have more un-treated people with mental health problems running around.

 

[JKimball]

The very nature of this imairment makes it impossible to "recognize dangerous thought processes and deal with them appropriately" - as so many here have suggested in one way or another. That inability is what serious mental illness is by definition.

Rainbowbob, I think this statement is accurate for extreme cases, but I'm guessing that the vast majority of "mentally ill" people who are taking medications still recognize that entertaining suicidal and homicidal thoughts is not good. I was just saying if you're a gun owner in that situation I think you should be prepared to take guns out of the picture at some point. It is a hard call, but guns and mind altering drugs (whether illegal, prescription, or alcohol) can be a bad combination.