Don't disarm the mentally ill

[emzie]

If its to be considered at all, then mental illness severe enough should indeed be grounds to deny someone a firearm until (if ever) they are cured or proven to cope well with their mental illness.

The keys there are "severe enough" and "proven to cope." Both of those are sensible. Someone who tried to kill themselves when they were 18 shouldn't be denied a firearm at 40 after living 22 years without incident. A person with an ongoing social anxiety problem should probably not be denied a firearm, since they're unlikely to harm someone or themselves.

 

[Berzerker]

Mentally ill people get better. Even the violently mentally ill. Thats the difference and it should be recognized, which is why the role of the mental health professional is so important to the courts decision on this. If the mental health professional says they are good to go, then let them have access to guns. If not, then dont. Gun restriction should hinge upon a current diagnosis, not one from years upon years ago.

Seems fairly simple to me.

And I'm not sure why such a check and balance of this nature is so objectionable to the left, since it does involved due process and the treatment and diagnosis of a mental health professional. This obviously wouldnt affect all mentally ill people, only those with violent tendencies or actions of violence. Why is this so objectionable?

The "left"? You're calling for more gun control and so is the left - the article comes from right wingers who dont share your willingness to throw the mentally ill off the gun rights bus. . And just how is Congress to know when a current diagnosis is needed? By investigating the mental health history of everyone asking for permission to have a gun? And health professionals will decide? Like they'll be happy to stick their necks out. Can they be sued if they screw up?

 

[MobBoss]

The keys there are "severe enough" and "proven to cope." Both of those are sensible. Someone who tried to kill themselves when they were 18 shouldn't be denied a firearm at 40 after living 22 years without incident. A person with an ongoing social anxiety problem should probably not be denied a firearm, since they're unlikely to harm someone or themselves.

I agree.

The "left"? You're calling for more gun control and so is the left - the article comes from right wingers who dont share your willingness to throw the mentally ill off the gun rights bus. . And just how is Congress to know when a current diagnosis is needed? By investigating the mental health history of everyone asking for permission to have a gun? And health professionals will decide? Like they'll be happy to stick their necks out. Can they be sued if they screw up?

I'm not calling for gun control, i'm calling for more mental health control. They arent the same thing.

And again, labeling my position as 'throwing the mentally ill off the gun rights bus' simply is a mischaracterization, a outright lie if you will, since there is a decided difference in someone who is violentlly mentally ill and someone who has a severe fear of heights. You continually seem unable or unwilling to recognize that point.

As to the congress, all it takes is a continual database where such information can be assessed as it occurs. If a person wants to buy a gun, but has a psych red flag due to a diagnosis of being mentally ill, then they dont pass the gun buy restrictions. Simple.

 

[GhostWriter16]

While I can understand the reasons for stopping someone who is likely to hurt someone else from buying a gun, government should have no role whatsoever in stopping Americans from hurting themselves.

 

[caketastydelish]

I'm honestly surprised to see you say that, Ghostwriter.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Really?

 

[caketastydelish]

Allowing the mentally ill to have weapons is one thing, "it's ok to commit suicide" is another.

 

[GhostWriter16]

You completely misinterpreted my comment it seems. That I don't think the government should do something about something doesn't mean that that thing is a good thing. Just because I don't think the government should force people to live against their will doesn't mean that I believe that anyone should kill themselves. For the record, I believe it is a sin to kill yourself. But as you are the rightful owner of yourself, it should not be a crime.

 

[MobBoss]

While I can understand the reasons for stopping someone who is likely to hurt someone else from buying a gun, government should have no role whatsoever in stopping Americans from hurting themselves.

The problem really being many of those disiring to hurt themselves also want to hurt a lot of others on the way out.

You completely misinterpreted my comment it seems. That I don't think the government should do something about something doesn't mean that that thing is a good thing. Just because I don't think the government should force people to live against their will doesn't mean that I believe that anyone should kill themselves. For the record, I believe it is a sin to kill yourself. But as you are the rightful owner of yourself, it should not be a crime.

Its a basic tenet of Christian faith that you dont own yourself, God owns you. Have you forgotten this?

 

[caketastydelish]

It seems to me he's saying the state should not enforce Christian rules on people. That said, I'm somewhat surprised to hear that from him.

 

[emzie]

The thing is, people who wish to harm themselves are almost by definition people who are unable to make informed consent decisions regarding their own life.

 

[caketastydelish]

Well that's quite a philosophical thing to say, though not all philosophers would agree I'm sure.

If someone's life is nothing but pain and suffering maybe ending the pain is their best choice. There are plenty of people that would rather die at a young age than live a life of misery.

 

[azzaman333]

Guns enable those who are mentally ill to spontaneously perform actions with destructive, irreversible consequence. I'm glad that guns aren't ubiquitous in Australia, because I have no idea what stupid irrational actions I might've done during my years of depression.

Purely from a suicide perspective, a noose requires a lot of preparation, a drug overdose is unreliable, a knife requires you to stick an object into your own body, jumping off a building/bridge gives you time to come to your senses. A gun is right there, you pull the trigger, and it's done. Not to mention the damage you can potentially do to others.

 

[MobBoss]

Well that's quite a philosophical thing to say, though not all philosophers would agree I'm sure.

If someone's life is nothing but pain and suffering maybe ending the pain is their best choice. There are plenty of people that would rather die at a young age than live a life of misery.

To quote a Queen lyric 'dont try suicide, you're just going to hate it...'

 

[Flying Pig]

To quote Queen again, 'I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all'

 

[Bugfatty300]

As to the congress, all it takes is a continual database where such information can be assessed as it occurs. If a person wants to buy a gun, but has a psych red flag due to a diagnosis of being mentally ill, then they dont pass the gun buy restrictions. Simple.

Which is pretty much how it has worked since 1994. Not very effective considering that the vast majority of spree killers and potential spree killers are never on anyone's radar to begin until after the fact.

 

[El_Machinae]

Another problem with the mental health diagnosis is that it would then be non-governmental agencies stripping someone of their rights.

 

[EnglishEdward]

As the right for USA citizens to own a gun is all about being able to serve in a
militia, logically people killing guns should only be sold to those people on the
state's database of people that have confirmed their willingness and been
annually certified physically and mentally fit to serve in the state militia.

You want a gun, you apply to be put on the militia list and
get medically examined and trained in gun safety too.

The current US problem with its very high homicides rates is the
concept has arisen that gun ownership is a near universal right for
all US adults, that is divorced from potential duty to serve in a militia.

 

[Bugfatty300]

As the right for USA citizens to own a gun is all about being able to serve in a militia,

Not according to the Supreme Court.

gun ownership is a near universal right for all US adults

Not really.

The Gun Control Act (GCA) makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms. 18 USC 922(g). Transfers of firearms to any such prohibited persons are also unlawful. 18 USC 922(d). These categories include any person:

Persons under indictment for, or convicted of, any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding on year; Fugitives from justice;

Persons who are unlawful users of, or addicted to, any controlled substance;

Persons who have been declared by a court as mental defectives or have been committed to a mental institution;

Illegal aliens, or aliens who were admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa;

Persons who have been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces;

Persons who have renounced their United States citizenship;

Persons subject to certain types of restraining orders; and

Persons who have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

A pretty good chunk of the population have no second amendment rights.

The current US problem with its very high homicides rates is...

Drugs, poverty, unemployment, social inequality, poor education, poor mental health care?

 

[Flying Pig]

Purely from reading the text of the Second Amendment, it's quite clear that the clause beginning 'a well regulated militia...' is an explanation of the clause beginning 'the right of the people...' and that the latter clause is not dependent on it: it can be restated as 'the right of the people...' because 'a well regulated militia [is]...'