Don't disarm the mentally ill

[caketastydelish]

If someone is going to kill themselves, they don't need a gun to do it.

 

[emzie]

No. But guns certainly make it harder to undo a suicide attempt.

 

[dirtyparrot]

Why not just have everyone do an extensive psych test to see who is potentially violent? Clearly, there are plenty of violent people who don't have a mental illness, so why do they get a free pass?

I think that society in general thinks that they are far more sane and responsible than they truly are. They think that it's other people, who have some sort of problem, are the ones who irresponsibly shoot people. Unfortunately, there's a segment of those same people who go on to shoot somebody in response to whatever stress they're under.

Yeah... look, mental illness should not be grounds to deny someone a firearm, but it should absolutely be considered. Not just for society's sake, but for the prospective gun owner too. While I don't know the numbers for your specific condition, 10% of schizophrenics end up killing themselves. No reason to keep that easy.

I think that that's a much better argument for restricting guns to certain people with mental illness. Often times there is little time between the decision to commit suicide and the attempt. So presumably, less access to guns would lower the rates of suicide. (p.22)

http://www.mhsoac.ca.gov/docs/Suicide-Prevention-Policy-Plan.pdf

 

[Goodfella]

Form, do you really think having a discussion on mental health and gun ownership is a 'knee-jerk' reaction in full consideration that the majority of these killers that are involved in this mass shooters are mentally ill?

Are you interested in trying to solve this problem, or are you more interested in scoring propaganda points?

Mental health is part of this real issue. The sad thing about this is its been ignored for way too long while other 'knee-jerk' measures have been taken with no effect or resulting in an actual increase in shootings.

Form, the definition of crazy is doing the same old thing and expecting a different result. Its high time that we take a look at this problem from more than just a 'its a gun problem' attitude. Or are you just fine with these mentally ill people having access to weapons with which they murder people by the scores with?

I agree. There needs to be more effort to stop people with the propensity to commit violent acts from acquiring the means to do so. Form, I would think you'd agree with this. Why should people have access to weapons that are designed to slaughter? Similarly, why should the people who want to slaughter have access to any weapons at all? Just to be clear, I'm well aware that the vast majority of the mentally ill aren't likely to commit violent acts, but the ones who are shouldn't have the means to do so.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Why not just have everyone do an extensive psych test to see who is potentially violent? Clearly, there are plenty of violent people who don't have a mental illness, so why do they get a free pass?

You can't very well deprive the clearly violent gun nuts of their play toys no matter how emotionally disturbed and irrational they happen to be.

But depriving others of those very same "rights" who have shown no signs of violence at all and suffer from mental illness, which the right wing refuses to even provide proper medical aid, is an entirely different story.

Form, I would think you'd agree with this.

Why should I "agree" with the same old tired strawmen of my actual opinions from someone who continues misinterpret them "to score propaganda points", instead of even try to discuss the real issues?

Fox News: Connecticut killings reopen debate on forcibly committing the mentally ill

 

[MobBoss]

MobBoss, I don't mind you having a different opinion, but stop stereotyping us.

Us? What do you mean 'us'? Are you violent? Have you been diagnosed as being potentially violent by a mental health care provider? If not, then I am not referring to you.

I'm not sterotyping all mentally ill people as violentlly mentally ill people. If you have followed my posts at all, you would realize this.

Yeah... look, mental illness should not be grounds to deny someone a firearm, but it should absolutely be considered. Not just for society's sake, but for the prospective gun owner too. While I don't know the numbers for your specific condition, 10% of schizophrenics end up killing themselves. No reason to keep that easy.

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.

You can't very well deprive the clearly violent gun nuts of their play toys no matter how emotionally disturbed and irrational they happen to be.

If it is so clear then have a mental health professional diagnose it as such, and i'll back you 100% in support. No matter what their political leanings are.

I'm not sure why you would object to this measure since in your opinion gun owners are apparently emotionally disturbed and violent.

But depriving others of those very same "rights" who have shown no signs of violence at all and suffer from mental illness, which the right wing refuses to even provide proper medical aid, is an entirely different story.

This is a gross misrepresentation of the point. No one is advocating taking away someones guns based simply on a diagnosis of mental illness, but only in cases of those mentally ill which are deemed seriously capable of violent action and harming others.

Is there a particular reason you are choosing to be this disengenuous here?

Why should I "agree" with the same old tired strawmen of my actual opinions from someone who continues misinterpret them "to score propaganda points", instead of even try to discuss the real issues?

Except your doing your best to not discuss it and simply use wild perjoratives as you do here. How about less frothing at the mouth and more mature discussion?

 

[FriendlyFire]

This is why we have people that are mental health professionals. It would be up to them to diagnose and determine who is potentially violently mentall ill and those that arent.

And no, you dont need to see a psychiatrist before buying a gun, just have the background checks incorporate a history of mental illness if there is one present. They would know you have a diagnosis if such a database were kept for that reason.

And just because you dont have all the answers in front of you hardly makes it dumb. Its only dumb if you are just fine with crazy people shooting up our schools on a semi-regular basis.

Wasting breath here Mobboss since 40% of all guns are bought legally second hard without any checks and who can guess the number of straw buyers purchasing firearms legally for another person.

NRA is against any background checks for private sales.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I wonder how they are determining "mentally ill"? Anything in the DSM-V? How do you rank disorders? How do you make sure people get treatment they need if a diagnosis comes with a new legal status? Do you need to see a psychiatrist before buying a gun? How do they know even if you have a diagnosis?

The whole thing is dumb.

Additionally, it opens up whether fundamentally average individuals are of sufficient health to exercise their rights.

 

[Angst]

I wouldn't feel my neighbourhood was safe if I was given access to weapons.

 

[MobBoss]

Wasting breath here Mobboss since 40% of all guns are bought legally second hard without any checks and who can guess the number of straw buyers purchasing firearms legally for another person.

NRA is against any background checks for private sales.

Ah, so you're think Bloomberg is a great source for that? Politifact disagrees.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...michael-bloomberg-says-40-percent-guns-are-s/

Our ruling

Bloomberg said 40 percent of gun sales take place through gun shows or the Internet, without a background check.

The best information on the informal gun market is based on a survey and is about 15 years old (the data used in the survey is almost 20 years old). There’s no question that many guns are bought with no background check, but there’s not sufficient current evidence to say that the proportion is 40 percent of all sales.

Bloomberg’s statement is partially accurate but leaves out that important detail: Half True.

Does it occur? Yes. But there isnt any real evidence to support what percentage of guns are sold/bought this way.

 

[Formaldehyde]

NRA is against any background checks for private sales.

Yet those who claim they only oppose assault weapons being banned still support and continue to deliberately ignore this effort by the gun lobby and Republican congressmen, who are actually major contributors to gun violence by refusing to plug this obvious loophole.

If they really cared about solving the issues as they allege, they wouldn't be aiding and abetting those who continue to cause thousands of needless deaths each year.

Instead, the far-right is now even trying to institutionalize those who suffer from mental illness who might possibly show signs of violence in the future.

 

[Flying Pig]

I would hazard that with the expansion of the internet, the figure for twenty years ago is most likely lower than today's.

 

[MobBoss]

Instead, the far-right is now even trying to institutionalize those who suffer from mental illness who might possibly show signs of violence in the future.

Actually, form, the argument here has been merely to deny them access to weapons until cleared by a servicing health care professional. Also, as to institutionalization, no one is arguing to put someone away because they 'might' show signs of violence, but rather those that have shown signs of violence and it would only be done on the order, again, of a judge based upon the diagnosis and recommendation of a heath care professional.

Is all you offer just hyperbole in counter? Is all you can do is gibber and point fingers at the 'far-right' as if they are solely to blame for the violently mentally ill conducting mass shootings?

It would appear so.

 

[Berzerker]

This process already largely exists, so I think your fear is here rather unfounded.

How is this any different that such a check finding a history of domestic violence or felony conviction disallowing someone to buy a gun.

Answer: it isnt.

This wouldnt be a judgement of mental incompetence. Merely a snapshot of whether a person is ok to own a weapon within reason at that point according to the recommendations of a mental health professional.

It wouldnt be the first or last time police have confiscated someones weapons via a court order. What do you think happens to a current gun owner if they get a domestic violence conviction? Wouldnt be any different than how that works at all.

"Mental incompetence" was your phrase, and it wouldn't be a snapshot of today but an investigation into the lives of people looking for past signs of mental illness too. You dont see a difference between a criminal conviction for assaulting someone and being mentally ill?

 

[Zack]

I don't think gun ownership should be a right for anyone, including those classified as mentally ill.

 

[MobBoss]

"Mental incompetence" was your phrase, and it wouldn't be a snapshot of today but an investigation into the lives of people looking for past signs of mental illness too. You dont see a difference between a criminal conviction for assaulting someone and being mentally ill?

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?

 

[Nick Carpathia]

If someone is going to kill themselves, they don't need a gun to do it.

Wrong.

Anything which makes it easier to do will increase the numbers who will do it. If you had a gun and suddenly went through a depressive phase, it's much easier to grab your gun and use it on yourself, than it is to tie up a noose from the ceiling. If you're going to be a dork about it, guns lower the activation energy for death. It's alot harder to kill yourself or someone else without a gun.

 

[Carras Dad]

there's a lot of people who wouldnt get a psychiatric diagnosis but still would be dangerous carrying a gun around.

so dont restrict this to mental illness, but run a personality test as well as an evaluation of a person's ability to deal with stress and prevalent coping mechanisms before handing someone a gun.

someone who doesnt have a psychiatric illness but whose only ability to deal with people stressing him out is to threaten violence really shouldnt own a gun, for example.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Ah, so you're think Bloomberg is a great source for that? Politifact disagrees.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...michael-bloomberg-says-40-percent-guns-are-s/

Does it occur? Yes. But there isnt any real evidence to support what percentage of guns are sold/bought this way.

He didn't say a word about Bloomberg. Now did he?

Did you even bother to read the Politifact article? Or did you deliberately decide to quote mine it while trying to give the impression that Politifact was claiming his own statement was a "half-truth" when it actually wasn't?

The biggest problem they had with Bloomberg's quote was that he failed to mention private sales while overly blaming guns show sales, and that the number is based on a study that was done 20 years ago which he failed to mention.

We asked Philip Cook, a Duke University professor who co-authored the study, if he thinks that 40 percent estimate -- which is now more than 15 years old -- is still a current, reliable estimate of secondary market gun sales.

"The answer is I have no idea," Cook said. "This survey was done almost 20 years ago. … It’s clear there are a lot of transactions that are not through dealers. How many, we’re not really clear on it. … We would say it’s a very old number."

Other scholars had similar views. Paul Blackman is a retired criminologist and former research coordinator for the NRA Institute for Legislative Action. "Personally, I think your safest bet is to say that no one knows, but that the vast majority of crime guns come from some other source than gun shows," he told us.

On the other hand, not much has changed in the gun market in the past two decades.

"It’s a fairly stable market. That is to say, gun stores have had their part, police supply stores have had their part, and then there are the gun shows and private dealings about which we know very little," said Robert McCrie, of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice. "There’s the knowledge that the market has been more vigorous and probably that higher vigor has been reflected in gun shows and private sales in tandem."

McCrie said, "The 40 percent seems about right."

Gary Kleck, whose research has provided the foundation for less restrictive concealed carry laws, told PolitiFact the 40 percent estimate is "probably still reasonably valid today."

Little other evidence

In 1999, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives released a report on gun shows. Investigators found that a quarter of the vendors were private sellers, not licensed dealers, and reported that "felons and other prohibited persons who want to avoid Brady Act checks and records of their purchase buy firearms at these shows." They said guns from such shows had been used in drug crimes.

We called the ATF and asked if there was anything more recent. They had nothing new to add. We called the National Rifle Association and the National Shooting Sports Foundation, groups that oppose new efforts to track gun transactions. Neither organization responded.

The City of New York commissioned an investigation of Internet gun sales in 2011. The report said on 10 websites, it found over 25,000 weapons for sale.The report said that over 60 percent of sellers allowed a purchase to move forward even when the alleged buyer said he didn’t believe he would pass a background check.

There is quite obviously "real evidence" that a large number of guns are still sold without any background check at all. To claim there isn't is disingenuous.

You also failed to address this key point that Friendly Fire made:

NRA is against any background checks for private sales.

Here you had yet another opportunity to go on record being vehemently opposed to this overt hypocrisy by the "law and order" crowd who are anything but, yet you didn't do so. Why do you continue to defend the indefensible by apparently supporting an organization that is actually directly contributing to gun violence by felons, despite claiming that you do not agree with their position?

I would hazard that with the expansion of the internet, the figure for twenty years ago is most likely lower than today's.

It most likely is. Yet gun violence is actually decreasing.

 

[MobBoss]

He didn't say a word about Bloomberg. Now did he?

Did you even bother to read the Politifact article? Or did you deliberately decide to quote mine it while trying to give the impression that Politifact was claiming his own statement was a "half-truth" when it actually wasn't?

Form, whats the old saying? Ah yes, the best lies are indeed half-truths. I read the entire article and no figures exist to base that '40%' on. Its simply pulled out of a dark orifice and offered up as fact.

There is quite obviously "real evidence" that a large number of guns are still sold without any background check at all. To claim there isn't is disingenuous.

No one is saying it doesnt occur - what is unknown and remains unknown is the actual current rate at which it occurs. There is no recent evidence to support the stated 40% figure. None.