Should people with mental issues be allowed to own handguns?

[Meekus]

I got into a conversation this evening with a friend. I am very pro 2nd Amendment. He posed "Do you agree with someone walking out of the mental ward of a hospital and into a gun store and be allowed to buy a gun?".

I wanted to see what fellow RP supporters would say to this question?

[OddballAZ]

I have two answers for that.

1 - In a "perfect world", I'd be ok with it. The "perfect world" would be, in every state a citizen can carry a gun with them, open or concealed, and 95% of the population does. A truly perfect world where nobody needs a gun will NEVER exist.

The reason I'd be ok with it is as soon as a mental case started to unholster the gun he'd be shot full of holes. We'd separate the truly mentally ill from the fame seeking Ritalin/Prozac filled depression cases real fast.

The truly mentally ill rarely commit these mass shootings. Most truly mentally ill would have a hard enough problem being able to get a gun loaded and ready to fire.

The Prozac cases on the other hand are usually depressed about a problem in their life and don't know how to deal with the problems. They see a shrink and the shrink just bows down to the drug companies and gives the person a drug instead of telling them how to deal with problems. After being wacked out on the drug for a while, they come to the conclusion that a drug didn't fix their problem, and they decide their life sucks and their going to kill them selfs, but take as many others with them as they can. These people still are able to think logically. This is why they choose gun free zones where they know they can kill as many people as they have the ammo for until they decide to take their own life.


2 - Here in reality, where 99% of people don't carry guns with them at all, we have these stupid gun free zones, some states don't even allow CCW, and we have shrinks handing out anti depressants like their candy I'd have to say no. We should only allow sane people who have not been deemed a nutcase in a court of law to own guns.

I carry concealed and sometimes open. If a nutcase started shooting near me, I'd drop them in a heart beat. But there isn't always a good guy with a gun nearby.

We should all be fighting to get to what I described in number 1. The anti gunners want to ban guns completely. But lately in many states the pro gun forces have been winning back their rights. We can't get to a "perfect world" all in one jump. It will take time. Here in AZ we have a good CCW law. Open carry is PERFECTLY legal, and people do open carry. We're also getting close to allowing CCW on college campuses. We're trying to get rid of all gun free zones and making some progress at it. Everyone, no matter what state should be working to do this.

[Dr.3D]

First, the diagnosis of the mental problem should be taken into account. Who was qualified to make such a diagnosis and does that diagnosis infer the patient would be a danger to himself or others?

If a qualified diagnosis confirms the patient may be dangerous to himself or others, then he should not be allowed access to any kind of weapon. They would most likely keep such a patient confined within the mental hospital until such time they deemed him not to be a danger to himself or others. So if he is able to walk out of the mental hospital, then he probably has been diagnosed as not being a dangerous person.

In other words, if he is released from the mental hospital, he is probably not dangerous and should be able to buy a hand gun.

[Kludge]

Those incapable of rational thought should have rights relative to that of a minor and be placed under the responsibility (LEGALLY) of some type of a guardian.

As such, it should be the guardian's decision whether or not they have a gun, knowing that they are legally responsible if something were to happen.

[Dave Pedersen]

Allowed? Who presumes to disallow? Freedom is freedom and "allow" and all derivatives is not freedom.

Yes they should not be prevented. No they should not be "allowed" for to allow is to permit and to license and to validate the concept of restriction.

[pdavis]

The question is not whether a free, mentally ill person, who may be dangerous, should have the right to keep and bear arms; the question is why is someone who is dangerous to society being released?

[thuja]

I have two answers for that.

1 - In a "perfect world", I'd be ok with it. The "perfect world" would be, in every state a citizen can carry a gun with them, open or concealed, and 95% of the population does. A truly perfect world where nobody needs a gun will NEVER exist.

The reason I'd be ok with it is as soon as a mental case started to unholster the gun he'd be shot full of holes. We'd separate the truly mentally ill from the fame seeking Ritalin/Prozac filled depression cases real fast.

The truly mentally ill rarely commit these mass shootings. Most truly mentally ill would have a hard enough problem being able to get a gun loaded and ready to fire.

The Prozac cases on the other hand are usually depressed about a problem in their life and don't know how to deal with the problems. They see a shrink and the shrink just bows down to the drug companies and gives the person a drug instead of telling them how to deal with problems. After being wacked out on the drug for a while, they come to the conclusion that a drug didn't fix their problem, and they decide their life sucks and their going to kill them selfs, but take as many others with them as they can. These people still are able to think logically. This is why they choose gun free zones where they know they can kill as many people as they have the ammo for until they decide to take their own life.


2 - Here in reality, where 99% of people don't carry guns with them at all, we have these stupid gun free zones, some states don't even allow CCW, and we have shrinks handing out anti depressants like their candy I'd have to say no. We should only allow sane people who have not been deemed a nutcase in a court of law to own guns.

I carry concealed and sometimes open. If a nutcase started shooting near me, I'd drop them in a heart beat. But there isn't always a good guy with a gun nearby.

We should all be fighting to get to what I described in number 1. The anti gunners want to ban guns completely. But lately in many states the pro gun forces have been winning back their rights. We can't get to a "perfect world" all in one jump. It will take time. Here in AZ we have a good CCW law. Open carry is PERFECTLY legal, and people do open carry. We're also getting close to allowing CCW on college campuses. We're trying to get rid of all gun free zones and making some progress at it. Everyone, no matter what state should be working to do this.

absolutely right.

[Tdcci]

It all depends on who decides what is mental illness and what is not. An existing law would be pretty ineffective since religion is not considered a mental illness in this country.

[Dr.3D]

It all depends on who decides what is mental illness and what is not. An existing law would be pretty ineffective since religion is not considered a mental illness in this country.

Same could be said for Atheism.

[seapilot]

I got into a conversation this evening with a friend. I am very pro 2nd Amendment. He posed "Do you agree with someone walking out of the mental ward of a hospital and into a gun store and be allowed to buy a gun?".

I wanted to see what fellow RP supporters would say to this question?

Depends on what the diagnosed mental condition is. If they pose a real danger to themselves and others then they shouldnt have been released from the mental ward or released to a person that is responsible for thier actions if they cant be held accountable for thier own. In that case they should not be near any type of weapon including golf clubs.

[Tdcci]

Same could be said for Atheism.

There are many ways of interpreting that statement.

Are you saying that you think Atheism is a mental illness?
Are you saying that you think Atheism is a religion, and therefore is a mental illness?
Are you saying that if the precedent is set it could be reversed on Atheism?
Are you saying that some people could argue that Atheism is the same, but you don't agree with it?

[Kludge]

Gay people ought to be banned from existence.

(sarcasm)

[Dr.3D]

It all depends on who decides what is mental illness and what is not. An existing law would be pretty ineffective since religion is not considered a mental illness in this country.


Same could be said for Atheism.


There are many ways of interpreting that statement.

Are you saying that you think Atheism is a mental illness?
Are you saying that you think Atheism is a religion, and therefore is a mental illness?
Are you saying that if the precedent is set it could be reversed on Atheism?
Are you saying that some people could argue that Atheism is the same, but you don't agree with it?

Abnormal Psychology says a mental illness would be considered so if the majority of the people don't practice such behavior or belief.

Since the majority of people are religious, then accordingly one who was not religious would be considered the one with the mental illness.

[Patriot123]

It all depends on who decides what is mental illness and what is not. An existing law would be pretty ineffective since religion is not considered a mental illness in this country.
QFT.


Anywho, I never really had a stance on this, and this is really where liberals tended to get me on the second amendment :p But I agree with most of the posts here. If they're that dangerous to society, then why the hell are they walking the streets and not in a mental ward, or a hospital at the least?

[pacelli]

I got into a conversation this evening with a friend. I am very pro 2nd Amendment. He posed "Do you agree with someone walking out of the mental ward of a hospital and into a gun store and be allowed to buy a gun?".

I wanted to see what fellow RP supporters would say to this question?

I'm not even looking at the rest of the thread, because I want my post to be 100% non-biased. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I am a clinical forensic psychologist and have several years of experience working in state psychiatric hospitals. These hospitals house some of the state's most severe cases of mental illness.

Based on my experience, I can say at this point, "It depends". It depends on the nature of their illness (was it simply a case of severe panic disorder with agoraphobia? or was it a full blown first psychotic break with ego dystonic auditory & visual hallucinations, delusions of persecution, along with a severe depressive episode?).

It depends also on the severity of the person's illness. Has there been a history of suicidal or homicidal behavior? Is there likely to be a history of suicidal or homicidal behavior? Have multiple risk assessments been conducted? How long has the person been hospitalized, and what was their initial presentation? Was it court mandated or voluntary?

To a trained professional, your question generates an almost infinite number of questions. There are far too many particulars and unique aspects to the individual to make a blanket ruling. I disagree with a federal law restricting the second amendment rights of people diagnosed with mental illness -- whether that involves veterans or civilians. I think it should be up to the state to decide, ultimately. Although the state in such a case would be the end of a long chain of events prior to making a definitive ruling for or against people with mental illness owning handguns. States have already restricted ANYONE who admits to being diagnosed with a mental illness from purchasing a handgun.

Perhaps the question should be, "What should be done with people who own a handgun and also have a severe mental illness?" With such a question, I still answer: it depends. As a practitioner I have a duty to protect not only the patient but also society at large.

[OptionsTrader]

Yes, federally.

The constitution does not allow any infringement.

Period.

I am more afraid of the government taking my rights than I am of mentally deranged people shooting me.

[1000-points-of-fright]

We can't put the gun genie back in the bottle. Try as we might we can't really prevent every single crazy person from getting guns and making plans to shoot up a mall. We can however stop the few that slip through the system by shooting them ourselves once they go postal.

Same goes for your average criminal.

[wv@SC]

You know, a knife in the hands of a psycho could be MUCH more dangerous than a gun. With a knife it only takes two things: you and the knife. With a gun: you, the gun, and ammunition. Someone further up the thread said something about how crazy it is that mentally deranged people probably can't even get the gun loaded properly. You don't have to load a knife - it's got infinite capacity to kill!

NO PERSON as a US citizen should be denied by the local, state, or federal government the right to acquire and use arms unless BY THEIR ACTIONS they have willfully broken the laws and thus forfeited their right.

If you have a family member that is mentally deranged, depending on who that person is (in relation to you) YOU - NOT THE GOVERNMENT - should take responsibility to make sure they are neither a hazard to themselves nor anyone else. I'm sure there has been many times where a person had strong regrets because they did not take care of some family member and the results were tragic. Of course, I'm not advocating all of us knowing what our parents, grandparents, brothers, sisters, children (the ones that are grown and out from under our roof), cousins, etc. in an invasive way! But prevention is our prerogative, and should not be that of the government with regards to redefining our civil liberties.

[Truth Warrior]

Nope, just the government thugs, clever psychopaths and sociopaths and the other criminals should have guns. That's always worked out really well in the past, hasn't it? :D

[Doktor_Jeep]

The voices in my head say "yes".

[maeqFREEDOMfree]

The voices in my head say "yes".

my magic 8 ball agrees with the voices in your head :-)

[TruckinMike]

Yes, federally.

The constitution does not allow any infringement.

Period.

I am more afraid of the government taking my rights than I am of mentally deranged people shooting me.


The only correct answer.

TMike

[Primbs]

The real issue is what about all the war veterans who are trained with guns who are diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. Do you take away their guns?
and deny them the right to own a gun?



The late Colonel Hackworth had this to say about combat stress.

http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csnews.cgi/csNews.cgi?database=Hacks%20Target.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=115&rnd=708.1428056444397

The Veterans Disarmament Act

http://www.redpills.org/?p=731

[Dr.3D]

The real issue is what about all the war veterans who are trained with guns who are diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. Do you take away their guns?
and deny them the right to own a gun?



The late Colonel Hackworth had this to say about combat stress.

http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csnews.cgi/csNews.cgi?database=Hacks%20Target.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=115&rnd=708.1428056444397

The Veterans Disarmament Act

http://www.redpills.org/?p=731

Yeah, that is the stupidest thing they ever did.

With McCain's military jacket carefully locked up and sealed, we will never know if he was diagnosed with PTSS. If they want to enforce such a law, then at least they should check to see if presidential hopefuls fall in that category.

With their line of thinking, should a president who was diagnosed with PTSS be allowed to have control of a nuclear arsenal?

What they are doing with such a law, is making those people who of their own free will, went in for help with a mental problem they felt they might be suffering with, guilty until proven innocent.

Do they actually expect others who may feel they may be suffering from PTSS will seek help from the medical community knowing if they do so, they may lose their second amendment rights?

[krott5333]

they absolutely SHOULD be able to buy a gun. If they were still a threat to society, they should still be in the mental ward. Its the same with criminals. If they are still enough of a threat to deny them firearm ownership, they should be in jail.

I dont believe in background checks. The less gun control, the better. Thats why its called a natural, inalienable, God-given right. The Constitution simply protects it. (well, its supposed to)

[Spirit of '76]

Remember that in the Soviet Union, one of the most common methods of dealing with dissidents and enemies of the state was to have them declared mentally unstable.

This allowed the state to restrict their rights in all kinds of ways, up to and including incarceration. There's no reason to believe that our government would behave any differently.

[The One]

Everybody has mental issues. Some hide it better than others.

[bucfish]

When an individual is no longer allowed to own a gun, then it is only criminals and government that own them. Governments that impose gun control are then just criminals disarming their victims.

[pcosmar]

A quick search brings up much information.
Punitive psychiatry
http://www.google.com/search?q=Punitive+psychiatry&hl=en&safe=off&start=10&sa=N