Just to stir a hornet's nest...

[MbMinx]

I've been wondering something.
I can understand that deeply disturbed people should not have access to weapons. I get it! I really do.

But what about people with mental illness who are in treatment, on medication and are stabilized? Should they have no means to defend themselves?
I have several friends who suffer from various mental conditions. They have all worked very hard to bring themselves back to "normal" and have been stable for many years. Yet they are not allowed to own guns because of their underlying condition. One couple was the victim of a brutal home invasion several years ago. Another man was mugged on the Monon trail a while back and beaten pretty badly. They would like to get training and carry for protection, but the law won't let them (and it's going to be even more difficult in the future).

Is this where we decide, collectively, to sacrifice a few for the sake of greater safety for everyone else?

Side question...What about people who are fine themselves, but living with people who are unstable? Should they be disarmed as well? I know what just happened in connecticut shows the problem with guns around unstable people...but do all those people deserve to go through life unprotected?

I just don't think there's any good answers...I will check back tomorrow to see what y'all think.

 

[No2rdame]

I, too, have wondered that. Mental illness is treatable and for those who show progress, should they not be in consideration for the reinstatement of their gun rights? It's a slippery slope, I know, but of the examples you mentioned these people suffered serious trauma and understandably sought treatment. They do not sound as if they are seriously disturbed individuals, just traumatized ones.

As far as having guns in your home when you have unstable people living with you, I think it is imperative that the gun owner be as responsible as possible and take every precaution necessary to keep guns out of the hand of that individual. Now, how that is enforced is questionable.

 

[Indy60]

Really good question. That would be the danger with a database because once labeled anything other than normal I would think it impossible to get rid of the stigma. Just like the criminal background check for firearm purchases and felony convictions. I am sure there are a bunch of upstanding individuals out there who are avid hunters and gun lovers who made a mistake in their past and forever are denied the possession of a firearm because of a non violent felony conviction. Boils down to who makes the decision on who is mentally unstable,or stable and in treatment but selected to be left out. Kind of like 1930's Nazi Germany.

 

[Leo]

No, if you are too unstable to be trusted to take care of yourself, you should not "have the right" If a person is a nutjob, what do you think the likelyhood of them doing the right thing at the right time?

Take a look at the madman that shot up the St John, Indiana KMart in I think 1993, killing lots of women and children. His shrink said he was ok to be back into society, as long as his medicine stayed balanced. Guess what, it didn't. The risk/benefit ratio of allowing the mentally unstable to maybe be able to defend themselves would be way to risky.

 

[red_zr24x4]

I could be wrong, but I remember reading a thread on here about mental illness and getting a LTCH. Basically it was about producing a letter from your DR. stating that you were stable enough to get the LTCH.
Seems it would be the same for the NICS check, Although, you might have to get the pin Number, I don't know the technical name, so you would not get delayed or rejected.

 

[HavokCycle]

felons lose the right to vote. its no different. sorry you screwed up in a prior time, but theres consequences for poor decisions. a vote is just as dangerous as a weapon.

sucks, but theres no shade of grey to be filled in here.

 

[Nazgul]

Problem is, you cannot legislate personal responsibility.

Don

 

[HavokCycle]

Problem is, you cannot legislate personal responsibility.

Don

no, but you can restrict the rights of non-productive members of society.

 

[Valvestate]

The doc should be accountable for who is signed off as ok. If I were the doc, I wouldn't sign off an anyone that needs to take a limited or controlled substance to be stable.

 

[rnmcguire]

I don't understand why your friends would not be permitted to own firearms? They were victims of home invasions and muggings? Why, because they sought counseling to help them deal with the situation? Unless they've been diagnosed with a specific mental health condition I don't know why they would have any problems not to mention nobody would be the wiser if they did buy or own a weapon since HIPPA laws prevent this info from being disclosed. I'm not trying to say the mentally ill should have firearms though for sure. I've known alot of people who went to a shrink but are no danger to themselves or others.

 

[minuteman32]

I have worked with the mentally ill for several years. Not all mental illnesses are the same so those effected by them would fall into different categories. If someone has periodic psychotic breaks, no guns. If someone is depressed, on meds &/or counselling, they should be able to own them.
Just my $.02.

 

[SSGSAD]

Problem is, you cannot legislate personal responsibility.

Don

AND, YOU cannot MAKE someone take their MEDS, either .....

 

[HavokCycle]

here's the problem - mental health is the massive grey area issue in the country. there's no precise formula to fix it. mental health professionals routinely have no idea what they're doing, they throw stuff at the wall, and if it sticks, thats what you are.

few years ago i went some rounds with shrinks
therapist said i was depressed
psychiatrist said i was bipolar
MD said it was anxiety

turns out it was my ***** of an ex-wife that was the problem.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Everyones opinions are fine here until some doctor says you should not own or be near firearms

 

[parsimonious]

I have a feeling that this is an area where a safety solution lies.

Banning guns, or mags, or bullets is easy. This idea of restricting the rights of ill people is difficult. It sounds like a good idea, until one realizes that the citizens have likely done nothing to acquire this illness. Who is going to be
the first in line to tell someone " I'm sorry to hear you were born this way, life sucks, no rights for you."

The laws required to eliminate the rights of the ill are going to be complex, and,
challenged in court multiple times to truly find the proper boundaries of the law.

Maybe that is the best way to deal with it. It's gunna suck for a few people, and that makes me cringe. I don't like the idea of limiting the
rights of anyone.

 

[DeadeyeChrista'sdad]

Right now it seems like the opinion is that if you are seeking help on your own, then you're showing responsibility for yourself. If, on the other hand, you are ordered by a court to seek counselling or other help, or are otherwise adjudicated to be mentally ill, (which usually means you have screwed up enough to attract police attention and subsequent charges), then, obviously, you judgement and level of responsibility don't meet muster.
I'm no lawyer, and didn't stay at the Holiday Inn last night, just relating what I've seen on here.

 

[HavokCycle]

The laws required to eliminate the rights of the ill are going to be complex

isnt it already asked on the form 4473, (paraphrasing as I cant remember the wording) have you ever been diagnosed as mentally ill?

I don't like the idea of limiting the
rights of anyone.

its a fine line to be sure. but some people arent entitled to the same rights as others, dont deny this. its simple, you EARN rights by contributing to those who have contributed to your rights.
IE dont pay taxes? unemployment? welfare? sure. but you lose the right to vote until you are contributing to MY benefit as much as im contributing to yours. you dont have a say so in my life if your own is in disarray. deal with your own house before you deal with the the white house.

mental illness is the same. sure, well take care of you, but you have ZERO rights.

if you are a burden of the state, then youll be treated as living under MY roof, with NO decision making ability.

 

[shadohman]

felons lose the right to vote. its no different. sorry you screwed up in a prior time, but theres consequences for poor decisions. a vote is just as dangerous as a weapon.

sucks, but theres no shade of grey to be filled in here.

You do realize that prior to GCA 1968 that the only prohibited people were those that were incarcerated or institutionalized?

There is no way to prevent violent behavior, the question is, how are we allowed to respond to violence?

 

[Bunnykid68]

isnt it already asked on the form 4473, (paraphrasing as I cant remember the wording) have you ever been diagnosed as mentally ill?



its a fine line to be sure. but some people arent entitled to the same rights as others, dont deny this. its simple, you EARN rights by contributing to those who have contributed to your rights.
IE dont pay taxes? unemployment? welfare? sure. but you lose the right to vote until you are contributing to MY benefit as much as im contributing to yours. you dont have a say so in my life if your own is in disarray. deal with your own house before you deal with the the white house.

mental illness is the same. sure, well take care of you, but you have ZERO rights.

if you are a burden of the state, then youll be treated as living under MY roof, with NO decision making ability.

You are born with rights, people and government take them away from some

 

[HavokCycle]

You are born with rights, people and government take them away from some

our rights were developed 230 years ago, in a time when people were accoutable for themselves, or they died from exposure. psychos were victims to lynch posses.

are our rights still valid? absolutely.

the problem comes from - we've gained so many laws to protect the incompetent, unable, and unwilling that they've effectively nullified our rights.