So where are gun owners' opinions on the NICS & mental illness, now after VT?
- Thread starter FirstFreedom
- Start date
It may just be that the insane are running the country if this story is any measure.
http://www.columbusdispatch.com/dispatch/content/local_news/stories/2007/04/24/badwords25.html
http://www.columbusdispatch.com/dispatch/content/local_news/stories/2007/04/24/badwords25.html
I don't have much of a problem with prohibiting firearms to people a court has adjudicated "mentally ill" through due process.
I DO have a BIG problem with the way one can classify "mental illness" or "disorders" and the way laws are written.
Careful attention needs to be paid to any law prohibiting someone with a "mental illness" or "disorder" from doing something. Reliance on what psychiatrists claim is a mental illness could impact millions of otherwise normal people. Their psychiatric association has already claimed that at least 30% of the population suffers from one or more "mental illnesses".
A law that denies you some activity or right if you are "mentally ill" has a broad meaning, if the definition of "mentally ill" is only that you exhibit "signs or symptoms compatible with those described for a mental illness in [insert Psychatrist's Reference Manual] unless diagnosed otherwise by a qualified psychiatrist". This was attempted some years ago when shrinks wanted Congress to reference their publications.
The problem here is when psychiatrists invent new "disorders" and/or switch what is a benign "disorder" into a full-blown "illness". Referencing definitions outside of Congressional control is dangerous and wrong.
Nor do I trust psychiatrists. Half of the ones I've met seem to have their own problems and the ones that don't aren't qualified to be button sorters or test-tube washers. The other half are just playing guessing games with the odds.
I DO have a BIG problem with the way one can classify "mental illness" or "disorders" and the way laws are written.
Careful attention needs to be paid to any law prohibiting someone with a "mental illness" or "disorder" from doing something. Reliance on what psychiatrists claim is a mental illness could impact millions of otherwise normal people. Their psychiatric association has already claimed that at least 30% of the population suffers from one or more "mental illnesses".
A law that denies you some activity or right if you are "mentally ill" has a broad meaning, if the definition of "mentally ill" is only that you exhibit "signs or symptoms compatible with those described for a mental illness in [insert Psychatrist's Reference Manual] unless diagnosed otherwise by a qualified psychiatrist". This was attempted some years ago when shrinks wanted Congress to reference their publications.
The problem here is when psychiatrists invent new "disorders" and/or switch what is a benign "disorder" into a full-blown "illness". Referencing definitions outside of Congressional control is dangerous and wrong.
Nor do I trust psychiatrists. Half of the ones I've met seem to have their own problems and the ones that don't aren't qualified to be button sorters or test-tube washers. The other half are just playing guessing games with the odds.
BillCa,
OK. Define "Mental Illness" and how it should be accepted and/or applied in reference to firearms ownership.
I know it's an inexact science, but it's the best we have. Or should we just open the door and wait for the whacko to come in before we do anything?
In other words, do we give the dog the first bite?
OK. Define "Mental Illness" and how it should be accepted and/or applied in reference to firearms ownership.
I know it's an inexact science, but it's the best we have. Or should we just open the door and wait for the whacko to come in before we do anything?
In other words, do we give the dog the first bite?
Under current federal regulations that is defined as being involuntarily committed to a mental health institution. You still get due process during the adjudication. The mental health adjudication hearings I have been to do not place the burden of proof on the individual to prove he is not crazy. The burden of proof is on the complaintants to prove that he needs to be committed and is a danger. Trying to get some pshychologists to state that they have the potential to do so is like pulling hens teeth.
If you have proof that he has committed actual violence and harmed someone you have proof and a easier time getting a mental health professional to say he needs to be committed.. Under our legal system potential to commit violence doesnt count for much.
The Governor of VA claims he can close the loophole by issuing an executive order. Im not so sure with our system of due process that will work.
Like the refree in the boxing ring says..defend yourself at all times.
If you have proof that he has committed actual violence and harmed someone you have proof and a easier time getting a mental health professional to say he needs to be committed.. Under our legal system potential to commit violence doesnt count for much.
The Governor of VA claims he can close the loophole by issuing an executive order. Im not so sure with our system of due process that will work.
Like the refree in the boxing ring says..defend yourself at all times.
Let it Bleed
New member
As rare as hen's teeth. 
Physician, heal thyself.
Physician, heal thyself.
deadin,
Fair enough question.
The best I can do here is to say that unless or until a person has been found incompetent to run their daily affairs or a danger to themselves or others through due process in the courts blanket prohibition against someone with a "mental illness" should not be imposed.
There are, as I understand it, two categories - mental illness and mental disorders. Disorders are generally benign things, such as minor phobias involving spiders, snakes or germs. These are trivial things that rarely impact a person's ability to function in daily life. Mental illnesses are more serious and may impair a person's ability to function rationally in the real world - paranoia, schitzophrenia, manic depression, etc.
The concern, of course, is that someone can be labeled with a "disorder" today (2007) and in 2010 doctors declare it as a form of mental "illness", thus revoking your rights without due process or a review of the danger you may pose. Likewise, some "illness" may be brought on by external influences (depression over the death of a spouse or child for instance) and can be a "normal" part of life. Treatment or therapy may be accepted at the urging of relatives to shorten the duration and once past it, there is no longer a need for medical services. However, once a diagnosis is made, or treatment given, it may be arguable whether the psychiatric profession would "give permission" to allow the person to own arms again.
There are a lot of people who take medications to keep them "stable" and able to function. There is a question here of whether the medications can make them dangerous (over/under medicated, body changes, other medicines they take) or if they can/will present a danger if they stop taking these meds. The serious question is do we deprive them of their rights for being medically treated? If we won't trust them with arms, should we trust them with the responsibility of voting? Of holding a job of public trust? Waive the right of a jury trial? Serious stuff.
Dig into some of what I call pseudo-psychiatric bovine scatology that has come out of the profession since 1960. There are shrinks in the profession who believe that honoring and respecting the founding fathers is a form of "mental illness". Their rationale is that you're dangerous for looking up to "terrorists" and insurrectionists who were traitors to their country. They discount those with religious beliefs as either brainwashing victims or delusional for believing in an invisible omnipotent being without a shred of evidence. The worst part of it is that some of these types perform consulting to academia and in setting educational standards in this country.
Fair enough question.
The best I can do here is to say that unless or until a person has been found incompetent to run their daily affairs or a danger to themselves or others through due process in the courts blanket prohibition against someone with a "mental illness" should not be imposed.
There are, as I understand it, two categories - mental illness and mental disorders. Disorders are generally benign things, such as minor phobias involving spiders, snakes or germs. These are trivial things that rarely impact a person's ability to function in daily life. Mental illnesses are more serious and may impair a person's ability to function rationally in the real world - paranoia, schitzophrenia, manic depression, etc.
The concern, of course, is that someone can be labeled with a "disorder" today (2007) and in 2010 doctors declare it as a form of mental "illness", thus revoking your rights without due process or a review of the danger you may pose. Likewise, some "illness" may be brought on by external influences (depression over the death of a spouse or child for instance) and can be a "normal" part of life. Treatment or therapy may be accepted at the urging of relatives to shorten the duration and once past it, there is no longer a need for medical services. However, once a diagnosis is made, or treatment given, it may be arguable whether the psychiatric profession would "give permission" to allow the person to own arms again.
There are a lot of people who take medications to keep them "stable" and able to function. There is a question here of whether the medications can make them dangerous (over/under medicated, body changes, other medicines they take) or if they can/will present a danger if they stop taking these meds. The serious question is do we deprive them of their rights for being medically treated? If we won't trust them with arms, should we trust them with the responsibility of voting? Of holding a job of public trust? Waive the right of a jury trial? Serious stuff.
Dig into some of what I call pseudo-psychiatric bovine scatology that has come out of the profession since 1960. There are shrinks in the profession who believe that honoring and respecting the founding fathers is a form of "mental illness". Their rationale is that you're dangerous for looking up to "terrorists" and insurrectionists who were traitors to their country. They discount those with religious beliefs as either brainwashing victims or delusional for believing in an invisible omnipotent being without a shred of evidence. The worst part of it is that some of these types perform consulting to academia and in setting educational standards in this country.
WSM MAGNUM
New member
Read this and see if you still want to support it. I say get rid of the whole thing.
http://www.gunowners.org/a042607.htm
http://www.gunowners.org/a042607.htm
Carryabigstick
New member
I don't think that it is smart for the mentally ill to be carrying guns. However the mental institutions where they decide these things are a bit suspect. If they actually could tell with some amount of surity then it wouldn't be bad to add it to the NIC. But that might be used to keep alot of guns out of the hands of people who are mentally fine. Basically the Psych doctors are full of crap so I don't think they are a good way of telling who is fit and who isn't.