Mental illness and guns

[F350-6]

I think common sense tells us crazy people shouldn't have guns. The problem is, I don't trust our government enough to allow them to make any rulings that involve common sense. As a vet, I don't want to be labeled incompetent to own a firearm because they've come up with some new fancy mental diagnosis that I could get grouped into if they felt like it. I'm not shell shocked, have PTSD, or any other issues, but that won't keep them from labeling me something to suit their agenda.

We need to relearn how to recognize the trade-offs that come from risk management, especially risk from our fellow human beings. We need to relearn how to accept risk, and even embrace it, as essential to human progress and our free society. - Bruce Schneier

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/09/our_newfound_fe.html

I like that quote. I read stuff on his website from time to time. He's got some good articles on there.

sadly, i dont see that happening. the pendulum has swung hard to the left in this country.

I'm not so sure the country has turned that far left. As a whole, it still seems fairly split down the middle. Now the media has swung way off to the left and barely tries to hide it anymore. That makes the news sound like the whole country leans that direction. Kind of like if you only listened to Rush you'd wonder how anyone could be crazy enough to elect Obama.

 

[shortround]

Mental Illness, just like abortion is not a Federal problem, but a local problem which should be addressed at the State, City, or County level.

The States have surrendered their sovereign rights to a Federal monster.

The ACLU defends mental defective persons against local concerns that those mentally defective persons might pose a risk to others.

It seems mental institutions have gone out of style, even though their need is greater than ever.

 

[orbitup]

I have some personal experience with this. My brother went schizophrenic and threatened mostly my father. He attacked him a few times and my dad had a retraining order against him. He got locked up and pumped full of drugs 4 or 5 times. They would keep him until he was sounding normal then let him go. They actually told my parents "We can't keep him locked up until he kills somebody". # years ago he went to a gun show and tried to buy from a dealer. When he was delayed (I don't know if it was declined) he bought from an individual. Two days later he shot my dad, 11 times overall... right in front of my mother. He was on his way to my house when the Sheriff's department picked him up.

His rights trumped our rights even though he is bat shit crazy and everyone knew it and what he was capable of doing. Some people need to be locked up for our safety but I don't know how to determine that without starting down a slippery slope.

BTW he got life in prison this January. It took the jury seconds to decide his quilt and punishment.

 

[matefrio]

I have some personal experience with this. My brother went schizophrenic and threatened mostly my father. He attacked him a few times and my dad had a retraining order against him. He got locked up and pumped full of drugs 4 or 5 times. They would keep him until he was sounding normal then let him go. They actually told my parents "We can't keep him locked up until he kills somebody". # years ago he went to a gun show and tried to buy from a dealer. When he was delayed (I don't know if it was declined) he bought from an individual. Two days later he shot my dad, 11 times overall... right in front of my mother. He was on his way to my house when the Sheriff's department picked him up.

His rights trumped our rights even though he is bat shit crazy and everyone knew it and what he was capable of doing. Some people need to be locked up for our safety but I don't know how to determine that without starting down a slippery slope.

BTW he got life in prison this January. It took the jury seconds to decide his quilt and punishment.

Sorry for your loss. Thanks for the insightful and relevant post.

 

[TXARGUY]

I have some personal experience with this. My brother went schizophrenic and threatened mostly my father. He attacked him a few times and my dad had a retraining order against him. He got locked up and pumped full of drugs 4 or 5 times. They would keep him until he was sounding normal then let him go. They actually told my parents "We can't keep him locked up until he kills somebody". # years ago he went to a gun show and tried to buy from a dealer. When he was delayed (I don't know if it was declined) he bought from an individual. Two days later he shot my dad, 11 times overall... right in front of my mother. He was on his way to my house when the Sheriff's department picked him up.

His rights trumped our rights even though he is bat shit crazy and everyone knew it and what he was capable of doing. Some people need to be locked up for our safety but I don't know how to determine that without starting down a slippery slope.

BTW he got life in prison this January. It took the jury seconds to decide his quilt and punishment.

Powerful story. Thanks for sharing it and I'm sorry for your loss.

It is sad that I personally know of families close to me where very similar problems are happening right now. And if I know of several there must be many many more out there.

A serious problem we as a society face is determining where the line is? Where should the line be drawn where we say a person's mental illness is to the point where we have to say that person no longer has certain rights? I know the line should be somewhere, I just don't know where.

We have years of studies following examples like your brother's so we should have at least some data telling us a progression path of certain mental illnesses but individuals doing what individuals do throws an element of the unknown into the mix. A variable that exists from person to person that makes hard and fast across the board generalized methodology impossible to implement fairly on an individual level.

I don't know what the answer is. I don't know where the line should be or how it should be implemented. Or if it even should be drawn or if it even should be implemented.

Again, thank you for sharing your story with us.

 

[London]

Step back and look at the big picture. If someone wants to kill another person, guns are fairly irrelevant to that desire. They'll find a way no matter what.

Liberals used to love to argue we need more gun laws in response to recent mass shootings. That cooled off for a while when they couldn't counter the undeniable truth that the Tsarnaev brothers didn't need guns to accomplish the goal of mass murder. Now that our bread and circuses society has mostly forgotten about that inconvenient incident, the gun grabbers are at it again.

You ask where the line is drawn between rights and mental health. I say don't even bother to draw one. History has proven again and again trying to stop murderous psychotics is pointless. They are too good at flying under the radar.

 

[London]

Read this:

Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[XinTX]

the govt defines mental illness these days and we know they don't like guns. soon, your voter registration will determine if you're mentally ill or not.

Catch 22. They'll say since you WANT to own a gun, you MUST be crazy.

 

[F350-6]

Step back and look at the big picture. If someone wants to kill another person, guns are fairly irrelevant to that desire. They'll find a way no matter what.

Agreed. But it would still be nice not allowing them to have guns to make it easier on the rest of us. Unfortunately, I just don't see any way of successfully implementing that, so as the earlier quote indicated, accept the risk and be prepared.

Can't imagine having to try and be prepared for my brother though. That would have to be pretty rough.

 

[Southpaw]

Agreed. But it would still be nice not allowing them to have guns to make it easier on the rest of us. Unfortunately, I just don't see any way of successfully implementing that, so as the earlier quote indicated, accept the risk and be prepared.

Can't imagine having to try and be prepared for my brother though. That would have to be pretty rough.

That's a big part of the problem. Most people are under the delusion that the police or the government is there to pro actively protect them. And though that may be somewhat possible at a certain level and to a certain degree, it is certainly not possible on a local level. The local police cannot prevent, with any sort of real success, you from being attacked by someone who wants to do you harm. This is not a knock on local LE, short of having an officer at your side 24/7, it's just not possible.

 

[SIG_Fiend]

Contrary to popular belief, the world is NOT a safe place and never will be. Furthermore, the entire purpose and intent of the United States is to protect the rights of the individual as opposed to the collective. It may not be perfect but, the more we stray from that, the less and less freedom individuals in this country will ever have. The direction the national subject of mental health could go, and that some would gladly steer it, could always result in putting a big asterisk next to pretty much everyone's name for one reason or another, restricting or denying many of those individual rights.

 

[grumper]

Not to mention 'mental illness' is a spectrum with no clear boundary when a person is considered whacko.

Was Forrest Gump autistic or just slow? A veteran who sometimes misses fallen friends, is that PTSD or not? If you buy lottery tickets twice a week are you a gambling addict? Ever have that nagging feeling you forgot to turn the faucet/oven off or forgot to lock the backdoor? That's OCD. Do you go out every thursday and friday night to pick up girls? Could be a sex addict.

There's so much latitude for abuse and the kenyan has already shown he has no qualms about unleashing the IRS and NSA and FEC on political foes. Bad idea all 'round.

A better way to deal with it is to see if the person's behavior is unlawful. Judge a person on their behavior in accordance with the law, and don't try to lump the population into Sane and Insane groups, because like noted before it's a spectrum. Terroristic threats broadcast to the public should put you in the pokey whether you're the sanest person in the world or virgin monkeyboy with aspergers.

 

[London]

Was Forrest Gump autistic or just slow? A veteran who sometimes misses fallen friends, is that PTSD or not? If you buy lottery tickets twice a week are you a gambling addict? Ever have that nagging feeling you forgot to turn the faucet/oven off or forgot to lock the backdoor? That's OCD. Do you go out every thursday and friday night to pick up girls? Could be a sex addict.

Modern Drunkard Magazine

 

[Southpaw]

Modern Drunkard Magazine

Sorry to go off topic, but interesting editorial.

Of course, broadening the power of the Alcoholic Party is not the APA’s intention. Quite the opposite. Their intention, and I am one-hundred percent sure of this, is to shame moderate drinkers into not drinking at all. Why? Because (come through the looking glass with me) the APA is nothing more than a front group for Big Pharma, the makers of those expensive psychoactive pills with harrowing side-effects half the population seems to be addicted to. But half is not good enough, and they will not get a crack at the other half until that uncooperative element stops self-medicating with the booze. It’s no coincidence that The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the biggest bankroller of neo-prohibitionist groups, was created by (and named for) one of the high priests of Big Pharma.