The problem with denying firearms to the "mentally ill"

[vito]

We all agree, and probably this is almost universal, that seriously mentally ill people should not be permitted to purchase a firearm. How to define mentally ill is the big problem. Most mental illness symptoms are exaggerations of normal behavior, and in some case inappropriate behavior. It's easy to identify the extremes, but there is an awful lot of middle ground where the label of mentally ill may or may not truly apply. And then there are those who think that anyone who thinks differently than themselves must be mentally ill. What prompted me to write this thread was talking with a physician who stated that "no rational person should feel the NEED to own a gun", adding that in his opinion, "most gun owners appear to be irrational in their fears" and that in his opinion, "owning several guns, or keeping an arsenal of guns and ammunition is clearly a sign of serious mental illness". I told this individual that his ignorance was appalling and that maybe his statements were an indication of mental illness. Needless to say he now considers me another gun "nut". He asked me if I voted for Obama (I'm serious) and when I answered that normally I would respond that how I voted is none of his or anyone's business besides my own, but in this case I would state that I absolutely would never vote for Obama, considering him probably the worst president in American history. He then said "now I know you are really disturbed and should get help". This is why I fear a move to broadly define mental illness that would ensnare many of us for nothing more than owning guns and believing in the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Deen Macheen]

The gun act in Germany in 1928 was revised in 1938 by the people who became the NAZI (National Socialist) Party. In 1828 gun ownership was prohibited for all private citizens. The 1938 revision included a clause that all "Germans that the Government deemed trustworthy" could now own guns.

Uh huh. You get it.

 

[klcmschlesinger]

Dangerous dude......

That sounds like one dangerous doctor. Proving education does not develop common sense. I would make him my ex-doctor because he will abuse any system he can to deny someone's rights based on his misguided opinion.
I don't know anything about this, but maybe someone else does, but is what he did a breach of ethics? Perhaps if it is, he should be reported to some board or organization. Again, I know nothing and I'm sure someone will respond that does and make me look like an idiot. At least I am not pretending to be an expert.

 

[Queen_of_Thunder]

If you followed the recent news our government provided the very reason why people should own guns. Seems that the US Government has decided that its legal to kill a citizen if they are considered to be a threat. No Due Process. No notification.
No chance at all to invoke ones Rights. The Government wants you dead, your dead.
We have drifted over the line folks.

 

[JRWhit]

The biggest problem I see in the mental health issue is that you cannot punish someone for a crime they have not committed. I would think that the only way of deeming someone defective is to have proof or instance of violent behavior from mental illness, or verbal confirmation from the individual that they intend to harm others either by random act,or planned. Otherwise we cross a dangerous line with no definitive boundary.

 

[ApacheCoTodd]

I'd worry about the scale slipping over to get anyone who has ever been in re-hab, women diagnosed in the past with postpartum depression, ANYONE having ever been prescribed meds for any form of depression and the like.

If mental health and it's general lack of real science in so much of the assessment and diagnosis becomes a litmus test for firearms ownership - why stop there - might as well say they're disqualified to vote as well or parent or drive or...

 

[CLP]

We all agree, and probably this is almost universal, that seriously mentally ill people should not be permitted to purchase a firearm. How to define mentally ill is the big problem. Most mental illness symptoms are exaggerations of normal behavior, and in some case inappropriate behavior. It's easy to identify the extremes, but there is an awful lot of middle ground where the label of mentally ill may or may not truly apply. And then there are those who think that anyone who thinks differently than themselves must be mentally ill. What prompted me to write this thread was talking with a physician who stated that "no rational person should feel the NEED to own a gun", adding that in his opinion, "most gun owners appear to be irrational in their fears" and that in his opinion, "owning several guns, or keeping an arsenal of guns and ammunition is clearly a sign of serious mental illness". I told this individual that his ignorance was appalling and that maybe his statements were an indication of mental illness. Needless to say he now considers me another gun "nut". He asked me if I voted for Obama (I'm serious) and when I answered that normally I would respond that how I voted is none of his or anyone's business besides my own, but in this case I would state that I absolutely would never vote for Obama, considering him probably the worst president in American history. He then said "now I know you are really disturbed and should get help". This is why I fear a move to broadly define mental illness that would ensnare many of us for nothing more than owning guns and believing in the 2nd Amendment.

I would hope you report this physician to your State Medical Board. This is highly inappropriate.

 

[rondog]

All it takes is a doctor to put a check mark in the right box and "presto", you're "mentally ill", or at least on a "list".

 

[SoCalNoMore]

All it takes is a doctor to put a check mark in the right box and "presto", you're "mentally ill", or at least on a "list".

And that is the part that worries me. After working with doctors all day, I can honestly say some of them should be on that list. Our society puts too much reliance on the word of a person that "practices" their profession.

 

[dab102999]

The other problem is medication indused problems. I have a friend who is a reserve officer. A couple years ago he decided to quit smoking. The doctor proscribed a medication that ended up giving him terrible nightmares, and vivid ones on suicide and death. He imediatelly told the doctor and stopped taking that medication. About a month afterwards i remember hearing news storys of the same type thing happening to other people. Now once he quit taking the drug his "mind" got back to normiall. But in this situation i am sure the doctor would have to report something like this. Now once it would be cleared up would he het his guns back???

 

[GAMALOT]

Your doctor pal was educated in the liberal schools and ways and is drunk on the Kool aid.

Mental illness is a major problem but one I doubt we will ever get a handle on. A person can appear completely sane today and go nuts in a matter of minutes. It takes a trigger and an inner rage that may not be evident to anyone.

Your doctor could be nuttier than a fruit cake but doing a great job at hiding it from the general public. The fact that he is willing to express his off the wall opinions is a clear indicator that would cause me to stay very clear of this nut.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

I hope this "doctor" is never put in charge of anything.

 

[Certaindeaf]

You're lucky you didn't get committed.

 

[zxcvbob]

WHERE were you talking to this doc? If it was in an examining room and you were the patient, you should report him to the clinic and to the state medical board. If it was in a bar (or Sunday school class), he is entitled to his goofy opinions just like the rest of us.

 

[dirtykid]

I think ApacheCo Todd hit it on the head,
what defines mental illness ??
At a different point in my life I was depressed, mainly because of the housing market crash leaving me un-employed with no marketable skills to get another job,, bills to pay,kids to feed,, I found myself in a "slump" NOT Homocidal,or suicidal , just down on my luck, feeling hopeless
Now, had I gone to a Doctor,and got perscribed some anti-medicine ,would I have automatically been labeled as "mentally unstable" ?
Thats the part that scares me !!

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

This is the problem that occurs whenever you let the government create a "can have the right to _____" group and a "cannot have the right to _____" group, and then let that same government decide who falls into what group. The flaw in this idea should not be a mystery to any thinking person.

 

[gym]

You should have told him that "doctors who catagorize people into a group, never having met them, should have their license revoked", unless they work in a prison camp

 

[gossamer]

I think ApacheCo Todd hit it on the head,
what defines mental illness ??

It's called The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

...and it is far from infallible. Like most human beings and opinions on both sides of the RKBA issue, the DSM is fraught with cultural biases, personal biases, conflicts of interest, and corporate/political/special interest group influence.

Are the problems with denying firearms to the mentally ill more important than the problems with denying freedom from unlawful search and seizure to the mentally ill? Or freedom to move about the country in general to them?

The field of Mental illness/health is an inexact science. So, for that matter, is our criminal justice system, our laws and, often times, our use of our rights. Nonetheless, the fact that these things are inexact should not deprive us from using them. As we know all too well, any tool can be misused to grave consequences or to take away the inalienable rights of others, be that a tool for measurement of mental illness, or a tool for defense of self and others.

The DSM - with all it's flaws and capacity for abuse in the wrong hands - is the tool that measures mental health capacity and defines various mental illnesses. Can it be used to deprive others of their God-given rights? Yes. So can a gun.

But potential for misuse in the wrong hands doesn't seem to form much of an argument to bar their employ by the rights ones.

 

[Outlaw Man]

Personally, if a person is so severely ill, mentally, that it isn't safe for them to have a gun, I think very serious consideration should be made about keeping them off the streets. It's all too easy to kill someone with something other than a gun, especially if the attacker lacks the ability to show mercy towards his victim and the victim cannot easily perceive the attack as a threat until it's too late.

Granted, there are people who are mentally ill (or juvenile felons) who should not have a firearm and can, because their records are sealed, while there are people with non-violent felony records that can't have a gun but are probably not at all a violent threat to anyone. The system is definitely broken. I'm just not sure that's the right way to fix it.

 

[rdhood]

This reminds me of a typical doctor joke:

What do you call the guy who came in last in his medical school class?

"Doctor"


I have numerous PERSONAL interactions with doctors that show that they are both fallible, make mistakes, and are (to some extent) no smarter or better than anyone else. For example, one day I was having HORRIBLE pain and needed to see the doctor. I saw the doctor, who declared it "gastroenteritis". A week later, I spent a week in the hospital with a burst appendix. This is just one of several instances over my lifetime.

I have three Bachelor or Science degrees (EE, CS, Biology). I have been to school more than the average doctor. I do not respect them any more than anyone else with an advanced degree, especially in light of the mistakes that made in my case. They are human, and a good percentage of the time they are making calculated guesses.

A couple years ago he decided to quit smoking. The doctor proscribed a medication that ended up giving him terrible nightmares, and vivid ones on suicide and death. He imediatelly told the doctor and stopped taking that medication. About a month afterwards i remember hearing news storys of the same type thing happening to other people. Now once he quit taking the drug his "mind" got back to normiall.

This brings up an entirely DIFFERENT question: to what extent are mental illness responsible for the various multiple shootings that have occurred, and to what extent are the MEDICATIONS given to those patients responsible? Seriously, it looks like some/all of the mental patients doing these killings are on psychoactive medications. HIPPA , the med privacy law, prevents talking about it even after their death. But it is time that responsible parties stand up and start talking about the possibility that medications might be exacerbating the problem rather than helping the patient.

 

[gossamer]

This brings up an entirely DIFFERENT question: to what extent are mental illness responsible for the various multiple shootings that have occurred, and to what extent are the MEDICATIONS given to those patients responsible? Seriously, it looks like some/all of the mental patients doing these killings are on psychoactive medications. HIPPA , the med privacy law, prevents talking about it even after their death. But it is time that responsible parties stand up and start talking about the possibility that medications might be exacerbating the problem rather than helping the patient.

You make a great point. Look up "SSRI Withdrawl" and you'll see that medications, or withdrawal from meds have led to sad and devastating outcomes.

Just read this one: http://ssristories.com/show.php?item=2357

Often times people who are plagued by the symptoms of SSRIs are labeled monsters by a society that failed to recognize that the cure can often be worse than the disease.

Can we say with any certainty that the outcomes would have been any different without the SSRIs? Not really.

But they are tragedies traceable to SSRI and other med withdrawal. It's a sad reality that is repeated way too often.

 

[JFrame]

This is the problem that occurs whenever you let the government create a "can have the right to _____" group and a "cannot have the right to _____" group, and then let that same government decide who falls into what group. The flaw in this idea should not be a mystery to any thinking person.

That's basically my thought also...

To fall back on that over-used term, "slippery slope" -- I would mistrust the policies establishing "mental illness" as a reason to deny firearm ownership. Aside from relying on the whimsy of doctors, who will ultimately be deciding what actually constitutes "mental illness"?

Something tells me that, given the draconian insertion of the government into health care in general (i.e., "Obamacare"), we need to fear that it will be government bureaucrats who will wind up making (or heavily influencing) those decisions.

Does taking prescription tranquilizers or an MAO inhibitor qualify a person as being at risk mentally? Homeland Security has already established that people belonging to local "militia" groups are potential "terrorists." Who is to say that the Department of Health or some other "authority" won't declare such members to be "paranoid" and "mentally ill"?


.

 

[Cosmoline]

It is not safe to talk to a psych or counselor. But there's an easy solution. Don't.

Don't get counseling, don't get RX for happy pills, don't talk to a psych. If you lose your RKBA because of mental health problems, it's your own fault for going to one of those people in the first place. And if you're sane enough to realize this and not need the happy pills, then you won't be losing your RKBA because of mental health detentions.

 

[22-rimfire]

What I got out of this.... if you voted for Obama, you're okay. Simply perfect in every way.... Mary Poppins... If you own a gun or a lot of guns, then you're a "gun nut" and inherently unstable. And... you probably voted for that "other guy".

Mental health issues should be a significant part of any gun control legislation. And I would hope that everything else gets deleted and we are left with "mental health" issues. Defining this is the difficult part and who's opinion takes precidence?

 

[gossamer]

To fall back on that over-used term, "slippery slope" -- I would mistrust the policies establishing "mental illness" as a reason to deny firearm ownership. Aside from relying on the whimsy of doctors, who will ultimately be deciding what actually constitutes "mental illness"?
Does taking prescription tranquilizers or an MAO inhibitor qualify a person as being at risk mentally?

You don't need to "would mistrust" them because they are in effect now.

Per The NICS Improvement Amendments Act Of 2007:

Section 922(g)(4), Title 18, United States Code, prohibits the receipt or possession of firearms by an individual who has been "adjudicated as a mental defective" or "committed to a mental institution." Regulations issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, define these terms as follows:
Adjudicated as a mental defective.

(1) A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:

Is a danger to himself or to others; or
Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.
(2) The term shall include —

A finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and
Those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to articles 50a and 72b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 850a, 876b.

Does the NICS maintain a database of medical records or information on an individual's mental health condition, diagnosis, or treatment?
No. The NICS does not maintain a database of medical records or information on mental health diagnoses or treatment plans. When a record of a person prohibited from possessing a firearm as a result of mental health issues (i.e., a person who has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution or adjudicated a “mental defective” by a court, board, or other lawful authority) is entered in the NICS Index, the entry contains only a name, other biographic identifiers, like date of birth, and codes for the submitting entity and prohibited category. The NICS Index does not contain medical records or medical information.

Who is to say that the Department of Health or some other "authority" won't declare such members to be "paranoid" and "mentally ill"?

The law of 2007 already permits "a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority" to be declared a mental incompetent if they "as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:
Is a danger to himself or to others; or
Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs."

And yeah, if one is so paranoid or so "mentally ill" or so ___insert symptom here___ that they are a danger to their self or others, or lack the capacity to contract or manage their own affairs I do not see that it's a bad thing for them to be denied on a NICS check.

Even as a supporter of RKBA, I'm not going to support a change in the current law that would permit people meeting these standards to pass the NICS system. And frankly, I don't really care who the president is at the time.