What do people mean by mental illness?

[Ignition Override]

Just before the end of the marriage, my ex-wife thumped me on the chest.

Maybe the only reason I'm legally allowed to own any gun is because I never touched her (no potential charges etc)?

 

[barnbwt]

Much, much more often than not, the speaker has no idea what they mean by "mental illness." Might as well be calling them "bad men," as in "there oughta be a law about letting bad men run loose." Most folks simply recoil in horror at even the notion of a disturbed person*, and this visceral reaction makes them say and endorse all manner of short sighted things.

I think a great way to look at this is like Akodo says, in the perspective of other rights. Think about it; a person so touched as to be incapable of being trusted with a firearm likely cannot responsibly/competently wield their other rights, as well. It's nonsensical to think their defect will impact only their judgement and marksmanship with respect to firearms (okay, maybe a crippling firearms phobia is the exception to this rule ).

Safe with a car? Safe with other people's lives? Safe with others' property? Safe with others' liberty?** Capable of following rules? If yes to all, probably safe with a gun.

TCB

*Even in folks who have first hand experience, the "uncanny valley" effect of many of the mentally ill makes it extremely hard for others empathize with, let alone understand them. Assuming of course they can even be understood (not my personal theory). All a lot of folks know is wierdos make them 'feel' uncomfortable, and they should therefore be expunged by any means necessary. Like I said, a very visceral, instinctive response not rooted in logic or even the pursuit of fixing a problem.

**Seeing as the whole purpose of our society was to protect life, liberty, and property, in the pursuit of achieving a higher, enlightened state of existence here in the mortal realm (that's pretty much what motivated Enlightenment philosophy; once and for all bridling the darkest human urges against decay and tyranny so we might become something "more"), I think a compelling argument could be made that those who seek others' liberty are just as defective as those intent on wrongly claiming life and property. That would-be tyrants like Bloomberg are as cancerous as thieves and murderers, and should be punished accordingly when they transgress.

 

[Sniper66]

I'm a retired psychologist and with over 40 years of practice I worked in institutions, community outpatient clinics, and private practice. I've performed 100s of court ordered evaluations on individuals, mostly men, where the central goal was to determine "dangerousness" to self or others. I can tell you with considerable certainty that it is nearly impossible to predict human behavior, whether "mental illness" is present or not. A pattern of violent or self destructive behavior increases the likelihood of such behavior being repeated in the future, but by no means predicts it. I also have to say that Reagan had nothing to do with many states that elected to close their institutions in favor of funding outpatient clinics. I don't have any ready made solutions, but have some understanding of the complexity of the problem.

 

[barnbwt]

With the leftist habit of labeling anyone who has a negative opinion of homosexuality a "homophobe", it's not difficult to see where this might lead.

Particularly since it wasn't so long ago they were seeking 'cures' themselves with cutting edge "science." Historically, psych study is such a recent and wildly flailing field that it's not a stretch to claim we're likely still in the "leeches and humours" stage of development. I mean, a hundred years back Phrenology was all the rage, then Freudian narco-therapy, then shock therapy and all manner of surgical tortures, and only recently we've transitioned into the pharmacological equivalent. Every decade or so another rapid, flailing change. Forgive me for doubting the current consensus' certainty.

Because some of you all fine conservative folks didn't want to pay for such institutionalization, is one reason- because, you know… taxes.

Oh, please. That was part of it; cultural shifts against "cruel punishment" (reference One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest for the very tip of the ice berg) led to such ham-fisted --and hit-or-miss effective-- facilities' closure. The Big Lie was that these places were for 'treatment' and were failing at it. This did not exist at the time, nor had it previously, so obviously that wasn't the real reason for asylums. It was to keep folks deemed unworthy by some large portion of society from running about through no fault of their own. The egalitarian mindset of the post-war generation was incompatible with something so coldly pragmatic, and besides, our society was so wealthy and powerful we could surely absorb any costs this group's release might impose. Same reason this coincided with "prison recovery" and death penalty opposition coming into vogue. Basically society deciding they are 'above' such petty and discomforting things as implacable foes and unsolvable problems, and opting to ignore them; pure decadence.

You can talk all you want about the "dangers of a free society" where dangerous mental cases are free to prey on law abiding folks. The failure to support existing state and federal legislation preventing the acquisition of guns by "adjudicated" mental cases could lead to a crime or series of crimes so hideous that congress passes some serious gun control.

The ol' "we gotta compromise our principles so as to maintain our principles" line, eh? I am not responsible for the actions of a randomly generated abnormality among hundreds of millions. Nor are you. Sandy Hook should have proved this to you. Sandy Hook should have also proved that what you fear is not realistic at this time. When gun owners have a clue and stand against knee-jerk proposals, we are not defeated. End of story.

"Mental illness" was most certainly present in the 18th century when the Second Amendment was adopted but the Framers made no mention of it, not even when it came to voting. Was it just assumed that the "insane," or "lunatical," or "mad," (all in the parlance of the day), would be barred the possession of firearms? Ditto for the right to vote or to exercise free speech: mental competency is not a prerequisite.

Methinks the Framers assumed "common sense" would prevail with reference to these issues both then and now, and that specific mention of them was unnecessary. If only they knew.

Uh, yeah, I think they assumed we'd have "mad houses" like they did at the time (incidentally, later Progressive thinkers applied the same 'solution' to prisons to form so-called "penitentiaries" when it became fashionable to perceive criminality as a disease in need of treatment rather than punishment). I suspect it was not mentioned since madness was tolerated to the point it did not impact interaction with others (violent/dangerous or not). They could predict it no better than we, so I assume they dealt with psychotic episodes and the like as they occurred...more or less like we do today. The only difference was their response was to lock the person away (to die of tuberculosis) or execute them in the event of a violent act of sufficient severity. Then as now, lots of folks went about their lives with untreated illness and suffered for it, and some of them occasionally became violent towards others and suffered for it. We can at least demonstrably help people today, sometimes.

TCB

 

[Nom de Forum]

I'm a retired psychologist and with over 40 years of practice I worked in institutions, community outpatient clinics, and private practice. I've performed 100s of court ordered evaluations on individuals, mostly men, where the central goal was to determine "dangerousness" to self or others. I can tell you with considerable certainty that it is nearly impossible to predict human behavior, whether "mental illness" is present or not. A pattern of violent or self destructive behavior increases the likelihood of such behavior being repeated in the future, but by no means predicts it. I also have to say that Reagan had nothing to do with many states that elected to close their institutions in favor of funding outpatient clinics. I don't have any ready made solutions, but have some understanding of the complexity of the problem.

Thanks for weighing in on this topic Doctor. I am not a psychologist. I am the child of a retired mental health professional in California. I think you are minimizing the detrimental effect that Ronald Reagan had on the treatment of the mentally ill. Below is a link to an article that explains some of what Reagan did.

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/29/ronald_reagans_shameful_legacy_violence_the_homeless_mental_illness/

In regard to the thread topic, I think there should be some concern about politicians making poorly informed decisions of what is mental illness sufficient to deny 2A rights. History is filled with bad laws created due to fear of people who are different from what some in society deem "normal". Considering the fact that in Arizona we have a extreme Right Wing state legislator who believes that much of what is wrong with people can be fixed if Arizona passes a law requiring mandatory church attendance we should be concerned about equally idiotic Left Wing legislators believing that they can predict in advance that a person with no history of violence is going to use a gun for violence.

 

[Bexar]

I'm a retired psychologist and with over 40 years of practice I worked in institutions, community outpatient clinics, and private practice. I've performed 100s of court ordered evaluations on individuals, mostly men, where the central goal was to determine "dangerousness" to self or others. I can tell you with considerable certainty that it is nearly impossible to predict human behavior, whether "mental illness" is present or not. A pattern of violent or self destructive behavior increases the likelihood of such behavior being repeated in the future, but by no means predicts it. I also have to say that Reagan had nothing to do with many states that elected to close their institutions in favor of funding outpatient clinics. I don't have any ready made solutions, but have some understanding of the complexity of the problem.

Good doctor...why do you think we haven't seen more women "mass murder" Navy Yard or school yard style? Yet...they are under considerably more social stress and I imagine the same potential for serious mental illness as men. Is it a misconception on my/our parts or is mass murder of innocents a testosterone driven thing tripped by pre-ordained evolutionary tendencies? I've been told by a friend of mine several years ago that had a little education in psycho-therapy that women strike out differently than men. They don't hold it in as much but have emotional releases. But even mass murderers may be perfectly sane by criminal standards just "spoiled" tantrum throwers. Anyway...this is a fascinating subject. I'm glad you joined in.

 

[Cee Zee]

I haven't read through this whole thread so forgive me if these points have been made. The idea of giving power to doctors to determine who is mentally unfit to have guns scares the dog water out of me. Because you can bet everyone in the country will be declared mentally unfit sooner or later. I've had more than one doctor take one look at me and say, "You're depressed, take these pills and make an appointment for next month." I don't know how they figured I was depressed just by looking at me but the plain fact was doctors were getting the whole country on Prozac type drugs at the time. That stuff is VERY addictive. Don't let them tell you otherwise. Once you get started on it getting off of it is almost impossible because you really will get seriously depressed if you start cutting back even a little. I personally think it was like allowing doctors to make heroin junkies out of half the country. They knew what they were doing. I knew it and I was some depressed loser. Seriously I don't think I was depressed at all. It's been years and I haven't shot myself so I don't think they had me pegged. I probably am a little depressed but it's because of my health situation. More drugs won't fix that. I tried that stuff and hated it anyway. They hated it that I wouldn't take it. No 2 minute appointments for them every month or so.

Doctors have already tried to withhold medical care from anyone who has a gun in a house with kids in it. It's amazing that mankind has survived all this time without doctors telling us how to live. Some states have banned doctors from doing those things but you can bet a lot of them would do anything to get rid of guns. You get a lot of do-gooders who are alread arrogant jerks because they are doctors and you aren't. Ever read a medical journal? The doctors hide them because half of what's in them is about how to play head games with their patients so they get the upper hand on them mainly so they can get more money from them. It was terrible what I read. Plus you get doctors from cultures where guns aren't common and they think it's awful we have them. If any of your doctors are from India you can bet they don't like guns. Obviously it's not 100% but it would still be a good bet.

So unless a judge can be convinced to take away someone's gun rights we are stuck. We can't trust doctors. We really can't trust judges either. Nobody wants a raving looney walking around shooting at imaginary rabbits. But we take the bad with the good when it comes to gun rights in the USA. That's just how it is. It's the lesser of two evils IMO. Surrender all hope of ever fighting back against an ever more intrusive government or deal with the loons who get their hands on guns. Tough call but I bet you can guess where I stand.

 

[Bexar]

Foxnews had an interesting documentary about gun free zones. They did an analysis of the mass shooters and how the shooters can be very calculating and can plan months ahead including recon.

The documentary was on the Outdoor Channel under the title Safe Haven

An interesting comment was made that these mass shootings were rather consistent in their frequency over the years.

The show/documentary was well done and presented.

It's scheduled to be shown Friday at 11:00 PM Mas o menos your time zone on the Outdoor Channel

 

[alsaqr]

You can expound on the Second Amendment rights of violent mental cases forever and i will not be convinced. Law abiding folks have a right to not be wounded and killed by adjudicated mental cases.

Thankfully, posters on internet boards are not the final authority on the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, or any other Amendment for that matter. That is the realm of the SCOTUS.

Quote from the Heller decision:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

 

[Cee Zee]

Law abiding folks have a right to not be wounded and killed by adjudicated mental cases.

And just who gets to adjudicate who is or isn't "mentally ill"? If you don't worry about that question you should. Because the way things are going in this country courts just do whatever they please. The senate recommended that Lois Lerner be prosecuted by the justice department but they declined to hold her accountable for her crimes. That's the kind of justice we have in this country now. Special interest groups can hold entire states hostage forcing them to knuckle under to their will. The America I was born in is fading fast. And we are to blame for not putting a stop to it.

Just caving and letting judges or anyone decide who is mentally ill is hardly the way a republic should work. We have a jury system for a reason. If the courts want to deny someone their rights let them take it before a jury instead of just pronouncing from on high that you aren't fit. The potential for abuse is staggering without a better check and balance built into the system.

 

[barnbwt]

Is it a misconception on my/our parts or is mass murder of innocents a testosterone driven thing tripped by pre-ordained evolutionary tendencies?

There's a theory that "amok" as it was historically called is not caused by defects in the reasoning portion of our minds (so they are still effective planners and rational actors) but by something going awry with their "friend/foe differentiation circuit." They see the entire world as enemies at war with themselves, and strike out as a one man army (which is why Columbine was a bit of an outlier, having two deluded nutjobs). The gap between their rational thought and the combat impulse ringing endlessly in their ears causes all sorts of rationalizations for their situation to pop up (feeling of persecution, religious fervor, delusions of grandeur). This combat impulse is obviously strongest in young men of fighting age. I'd argue whites are overrepresented simply because their generally higher income can support these individuals in a non-provocative environment longer where they can fester unseen. In the hood, these guys would pick fights and get into trouble constantly (and they do)

TCB

 

[alsaqr]

Yep, we have heard from mental health professionals and folks from various walks of life. When the mental hospitals went away the mental health professionals were very quick to adapt to the new scheme of things.

30 years ago i was a corrections officer in the WV prison system. Donald Bordenkircher, the warden at the WV state prison, gave us a class on mental health issues.

Bordenkircher's statement is more important today than it was 30 years ago: "They took mental cases, Thorazined their @335s, called them behavorial cases and threw them into prison."

Mental health professionals and others simply took mental cases, Thorazined their butts and reclassified them as behavorial cases. Many of these guys are walking zombies. One inmate at the prison i worked at in WV was being fed 500 mg of Thorazine four times daily. He did not even swing his arms while walking.


Mental cases are being thrown into prison where they are exploited, raped, and ridiculed by other inmates.

Lots of stuff in this country is adjudicated. In most states folks charged with domestic violence see a judge who decides their fate.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, folks are talking about the "price of freedom" and declaring saying it's acceptable to have a certain number of citizens killed by adjudicated mental cases. Well, some folks ain't buyng it.

 

[Nom de Forum]

The closure of so many government operated psychiatric facilities that were non-profit is paralleled with the huge increase in the mentally ill who are homeless and for profit private prisons. With so much money to be made by building and operating private prisons the corporations that own these prisons must be very pleased that people who should be receiving psychiatric care in mental health facilities or as out-patients are instead placed in prisons after their illness results in criminal behavior. It was inevitable that the unscrupulous would enrich themselves exploiting the suffering of some of society’s most vulnerable members. The operator’s of these private prisons also must appreciate the easy imprisonment of recreational nonviolent drug abusers that should be fined or if necessary placed in treatment and rehabilitation facilities. I suspect that there is also money being made imprisoning people for firearms possession offenses that never endangered anyone.

 

[Cee Zee]

Meanwhile back at the ranch, folks are talking about the "price of freedom" and declaring saying it's acceptable to have a certain number of citizens killed by adjudicated mental cases. Well, some folks ain't buyng it.

Well jump in your time machine and go back and have it out with the founding fathers. They set it up this way. As for all the theories about mental health conspiracies isn't that fodder for some other board? Sure Reagan shut down the nut houses. At least someone had the audacity to think about whether our country could stay solvent or not.

 

[alsaqr]

Very few people on gunboards ever bother to read the NICS Improvement Act of 2007. That act was passed by a conservative run congress and signed into law by a conservative president. There are safeguards and appeals built into the law.

http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0SO...l180.pdf/RK=0/RS=Af0D873sVYdXxXbPFKEeExx_l3k-

BTW: The NICS Improvement Act of 2007 passed the US House by a vote of 434-1.




The NRA liked the new law:

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20080108/hr-2640

 

[Nom de Forum]

Well jump in your time machine and go back and have it out with the founding fathers. They set it up this way. As for all the theories about mental health conspiracies isn't that fodder for some other board? Sure Reagan shut down the nut houses. At least someone had the audacity to think about whether our country could stay solvent or not.

Really? When Reagan left office the country was in greater debt than when he entered and closer to insolvency. The money spent on mental health in this country was trivial to what was wasted on unnecessary military spending (for instance Battleships in the 1980's!) and not collecting enough tax revenue from the political/investment class. As pointed out earlier the Founding Fathers either assumed the truly mentally incompetent and dangerous would be institutionalized, or more likely despite their political genius never considered the situation.

 

[BaltimoreBoy]

OP: What to people mean by mental illness?

A good question.

It might be worthwhile to check out the works of Thomas Szasz, a rather well known psychiatrist who disputes the general utility of the term.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Mental_Illness

 

[Bexar]

Really? When Reagan left office the country was in greater debt than when he entered and closer to insolvency. The money spent on mental health in this country was trivial to what was wasted on unnecessary military spending (for instance Battleships in the 1980's!) and not collected in tax revenue from the political/investment class. As pointed out earlier the Founding Fathers either assumed the truly mentally incompetent and dangerous would be institutionalized, or more likely despite their political genius never considered the situation.

Many foreign governments use mental illness as a pre-text to "imprisoning" dissidents. Our good friends the Russians have often used this ruse to avoid international amnesty scrutiny. Daughter's home gotta go.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Many foreign governments use mental illness as a pre-text to "imprisoning" dissidents. Our good friends the Russians have often used this ruse to avoid international amnesty scrutiny. Daughter's home gotta go.

I whole heartedly agree. It is not just foreign governments that do this. In our own country's history politicians at even the smallest local levels of government have done the same. As mentioned in my earlier post #17, we all need to be prepared to defend against extremists on the Right and the Left that attempt to use this type of abuse to further their ideology. The science of psychiatry may be far from perfected but still has better techniques for determining mental incompetency than politicians motivated by defense of their ideology. The closing of government operated psychiatric facilities in no way prevents tyrannical political leaders from imprisoning opponents; it mere moves the imprisonment to private facilities that may pay kickbacks to a judge just like private prisons have done in the U.S.A.

 

[Bexar]

I whole heartedly agree. It is not just foreign governments that do this. In our own country's history politicians at even the smallest local levels of government have done the same. As mentioned in my earlier post #17, we all need to be prepared to defend against extremists on the Right and the Left that attempt to use this type of abuse to further their ideology. The science of psychiatry may be far from perfected but still has better techniques for determining mental incompetency than politicians motivated by defense of their ideology. The closing of government operated psychiatric facilities in no way prevents tyrannical political leaders from imprisoning opponents; it mere moves the imprisonment to private facilities that may pay kickbacks to a judge just like private prisons have done in the U.S.A.

Actual crime has to have evidence...testimony and in most cases at the firearms revocation level a trial by a jury. That is all subject to appeal and review at and through the higher courts. An adjudication of mental illness at the level that would cause a person to lose their privileges can be caused by an individual (psychiatrist) that either and/or has an agenda or is concerned about getting sued if he makes the diagnosis of "no problem" and the person does go out and harms someone.

I'm not sure reasonable doubt plays a role in the decision process. I think this all falls under administrative law and that really opens things up for interpretation. The recent M855/S109 dust-up comes to mind.

Anyway...I'll take my one class of Business Law 1.0 and wait for the more educated and experienced responses from others. I should have gone to law school as the law fascinates me but when I started college late all of my classmates that had already finished law school were starving and praying for work. Now they are all wealthy and I'm eating beans.

 

[akodo]

Law abiding folks have a right to not be wounded and killed by adjudicated mental cases.

Right. But guns are just one way of many to kill. How many people are going to lose the right to drive, to consume alcohol, to pump their own gas, to pilot a plane, to own a pair of scissors?

As said above, it is VERY hard to tell what nutjob will become dangerous. And nutjobs don't need firearms to be dangerous...take a look at the recent German plane crash. If a nutjob is too unsafe to own a firearm, I don't want him to be able to continue his job as a busdriver, or own matches and be allowed near a gas pump, or a thousand other things.

As said before, I view all the rights as all the rights, I don't pick and choose.

You find me a guy who is so dangerous we need to take away his guns, I'm right there with you saying we have a right to protect society as a whole, we need to not just keep such a dangerous person from owning a gun, we need to get him off the streets and into some sort of locked facility.

And if we aren't willing to put him under lock and key, because we aren't sure if he really is dangerous, then many be better think twice about ALL his rights, including the 2nd.

 

[alsaqr]

The residents of some states refuse to buy the "cost of living in a free society" stuff. In response to mass murders by mentally deranged folks with guns, several states passed draconian gun control laws. Who would have thought CO would pass serious gun control?

Unless gunowners and state legislators get on board and report adjudicated mental cases who are a threat to themselves and/or others to NICS; we can expect more states to pass draconian gun control laws in response to future mass murders.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I don't care what is wrong with anyone who can't be trusted with arms. They shouldn't be walking the streets where the only inhibition they have toward hurting someone else is a law. "No" is meaningless to these people. They have already proven that with their behavior. On top of that, I shouldn't have to prove I'm not one of them whenever I want to buy a gun or carry a gun. In order for them to walk free, I've lost freedom. Doesn't that seem a bit bass ackward to you all?

It's a means toward the end.

Woody

 

[buck460XVR]

Well jump in your time machine and go back and have it out with the founding fathers. They set it up this way.

Yes they did. But, the constitution was more than the one sentence....

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

They also wrote....

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

That meant folks should feel safe and secure. They intended for this to be possible by the inception of our form of government with three branches....

"They are the Executive, (President and about 5,000,000 workers) Legislative (Senate and House of Representatives) and Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts). "

They knew even back then, that laws to ensure the safety of the citizens, while not popular to all, would be necessary. They also knew that those laws should be constituted by the majority of the people. That's why there is so many protections written into our system of government.

As for our founding fathers knowing and accepting the risks of the mentally ill to possess firearms, one only needs to look at how our founding fathers dealt with mental illness. They imprisoned even those with the slightest amount of mental illness and/or deficiencies in terrible and despicable confinements, tortured them, made them live in their own excrement and urine, while eating food that was not fit for dogs. Can we really think they envisioned them possessing firearms?

I too am not in favor of any more gun control measures without much deliberation and forethought. I too think there are way too many foolish rules and regs on the books, that are totally unnecessary. But I realize that every American has rights, not just me and the majority of those rights have nuttin' to do with guns. I also know I have no control over those rights that the majority of Americans think are not needed. As was said.......''They set it up this way."

 

[SSN Vet]

Well if you let the libs have their way, anybody whoever drank a cup of "wellness herb tea" with St. Johns Wart in it is mentally ill.....

It is indeed a slippery slope.