The fearmongering of the mentally ill

Status
Not open for further replies.
Martin Blinder thought the blood sugar levels of twinkies and coke may have had an effect on Dan White.

And in 2005 we have this diabetic getting a new trial because his hypoglycemia may have met the legal definition of involuntary intoxication.

And Water-man you DID ask for a lecture on bi-polar disorder from Tom, or anyone else. Or any other subject in any other forum you post in. It's kind of the point of these things. People debate, socialize, learn, form opinions and perform general discourse.

Some people who aren't bat-crap crazy(Not that bi-polar is, just that many of the spree shooters were, whatever their actual diagnosis) do violent things with guns. That's why so many are found guilty, rather than non compos mentis. Your rationale is the very same one Feinstein, Biden, and Obama are using to ban everything they can right now. Some people do bad things, so no one gets to have one.
 
win-lose, if you set the bar at just the need for medication, I think you set the bar too low.

If the individual establishes a history of having to be ordered by the court to take his meds, that is different.

I appreciate that your intent is discussion, not aspersion, so please realize I am playing devil's advocate and not attacking you.
Click to expand...

MLeake, I appreciate the discussion and value your opinions... like most here, I'm searching my soul to find the right balance between individual rights and societal obligations.

I agree just the need for medication is not a good litmus test. I also think that if an individual requires a court to order the taking of the meds, the situation has already gone to far. Perhaps, the severity of the illness as judged by the type of medication coupled with professional opinion on the likely consequences if the individual becomes none compliant may be an approach?
 
Actually, it wasn't the costs, it was the conditions, most 'Mental Hospitals' from back in the good ol bad days, were WORSE than prisons, and what happened in them, make Oz look tame. There were MAJOR issues, and if was also know that getting a 'troublesome' aunt or family member put in the loony bin was an effective way to get rid of them.

Now we pay more, more cause these people are homeless, consuming resources, living a very pathetic life, of just surviving, not in society.

OR, they are in group homes, in situations that cost MANY times what a well ran hospital cost.

The ideal of de-institutionalization was that everyone went home, to their supportive family, who with 'help' would care for them, that did not happen. Now prisons are the largest providers of mental health services....
 
win-lose, I believe that is already the approach.

The only likely changes I could see to it, that I might support, would be in providing specific exemptions to medical privacy laws, with specific reporting requirements for specific factors that have been proven to be predictors of likely unlawful, violent behavior.

I realize I used "specific" multiple times. That was by design. I do not believe in allowing legislators or social/medical policy types to paint in overly broad brush strokes.
 
Last edited:
Tom S's post; case by case basis....

I disagree with Tom S's statements. Mental health issues related to firearms can't be adjudicated on a case by case basis or allowing different people to have different standards. The law should be fair & equal as much as possible.
Judges, courts & prosecutors(AGs, DAs, AUSAs, etc) do not have the time or the budget($) to act on a case by case basis.

Clyde
 
ClydeFrog, how can the law be fair if individuals can be deprived the exercise of Constitutionally protected rights without due process?

If due process is followed, how can this NOT be handled on a case-by-case basis?
 
ClydeFrog, how can the law be fair if individuals can be deprived the exercise of Constitutionally protected rights without due process?
Click to expand...

Really? Have you been asleep for the last twelve years? This is really not the time or place for that discussion but civil rights and due process ended sometime in October 2001.
 
There is really only one effective way to keep mentally ill individuals from acquiring (legally) weapons and that is to create a national (or on a state level) registry of who is or isn't mentally ill. I don't think that any of us want the government to start digging through our individual medical history to determine who is naughty and who is nice.

If you have been adjudicated mentally incompetent, then that is on your background on a state level and can be determined. That is due process and is the only acceptable way in which a person's rights can be taken from them according to my understanding to the Constitution.

None us want gang bangers having guns. Demographically, you can determine which areas the gang members are likely to live in. You can further determine what demographic pool that the gang members are likely to come from. You can further correlate which kinds of people who are likely to live in the previously demonstrated geographical areas. Basing who can have 2nd Amendment rights this way is unconstitutional and wrong.

I don't want to be on a National register that limits my Constitutional rights, if they can take one of them away, they can make a case for taking others away and not just from the mentally ill.

It gets back to the issue that opinion or anecdotal experience should not be the threshold that limits a person's rights. The only acceptable way to do this is through Constitutionally prescribed due process.
 
While it is easier to make one-size-fits-all judgments about mental health issues, to do so flies in the face of individual freedom as MLeake points out. Alabama Shooter you have a more cynical view of our system of government than I do, and I am not as trusting as I once was.:p
 
Have you been asleep for the last twelve years? This is really not the time or place for that discussion but civil rights and due process ended sometime in October 2001.
Click to expand...
That kind of hyberbole begs either an explanation or a retraction.
 
win-lose, I believe that is already the approach.

The only likely changes I could see to it, that I might support, would be in providing specific exemptions to medical privacy laws, with specific reporting requirements for specific factors that have been proven to be predictors of likely unlawful, violent behavior.

I realize I used "specific" multiple times. That was by design. I do not believe in allowing legislators or social/medical policy types to paint in overly broad brush strokes.
Click to expand...

I agree with you.... "Specifically" (sorry, had to do it), I think the real issue is the criteria for mandatory reporting. The subsequent disclosure of private medical records and the due process that should follow are equally important, but to my mind not as complex. Medical Dr.'s are already mandatory reporters for instances of suspected child endangerment. Expanding to mental health issues that are specifically categorized and evidenced would make a lot of sense.
 
So you can accept the Patriot Act and its ilk as faits acommpli, or you can lobby for repeal or limitations of existing legislation, and prevention of further such.

To accept it as defining our current discussion isn't cynical, it is defeatist.
 
Mental health adjucation...

It's simple. Basic steps like preventing gun ownership or use if you;
Have been involuntary committed to a mental health facility. Attempted suicide or self-inflicted wounds, are prescribed or required by a medical doctor to take medications or drugs that can effect your ability to own/use a loaded firearm, made threats or have a court action(PFA, restraining order, trespass notice, etc) due to unstable behavior or mental illness, can not safely operate or fire a loaded firearm.
It's not a insult to a person with mental illness & it's not a violation of the person's civil rights.

Clyde
 
So, post-op Percocet count?

A suicide attempt twenty years ago?

Any mechanism for restoration of rights?

The devil is in the details.
 
There are simple answers to most complex questions, and they are almost always wrong. Clyde Frog in each of the examples given there is plenty of room for abuse by an over-zealous governmental lackey with a personal agenda.
 
What is "THE" definition of mental illness

Following ClydeFrog's post, 25 years ago in the USSR, not voting for the right (and usually only) candidate was grounds for incarceration in a mental hospital / gulag.

You may have heard the following people are clearly mentally ill, which often also have a significant political component:
Anyone wanting to have more than 1 gun
Anyone voting Republican (or Democratic, Tea Party, etc)
Anyone who takes drugs (any, illicit, class III, etc)
Anyone over the age of X (or between 13 and 19)
Anyone running for Congress
(Attend a hearing with Senator Lautenberg, and you'll agree:)
Anyone that .... (add your own)
........
How about people that have had PTSD? What's the difference in that and being scared $#!+-less? Are they all mentally i'll?

This is going to be an interesting debate, with potentially far reaching consequences. I don't believe there can be an effective single definition, or disqualification for drivers license, gun ownership, voting, or most any other restraint of rights and privileges.
 
Last edited:
So you can accept the Patriot Act and its ilk as faits acommpli, or you can lobby for repeal or limitations of existing legislation, and prevention of further such.

To accept it as defining our current discussion isn't cynical, it is defeatist.
Click to expand...
I was merely explaining the "hyberbole" being questioned, neither accepting nor lobbying against such.

As for the questions you raise, this isn't a medical room, though if there are some medical specialists, I'd love to hear some of their input. How long ago should a suicide attempt be before it is "forgiven" from the record?

What duration of a cessation of suicidal tendencies is suggestive of a lifetime cessation?

Self-multilation or "cutting" is, from what I understand not a suicidal tendency but still a sign of deep psychological problems. Guilt? Fear? Giving someone under the strain leading to cutting a gun seems akin to pouring gasoline on a fire. But keeping them from one if they needed one for the fear they feel seems cruel too. They have bigger issues than owning a gun. They're most likely in a situation they need to get extricated from more than they need a gun. But I don't know. I'm not a doc, nor a shrink. And us debating these points with so little knowledge is little better than the elected official from that blog earlier. The one who wanted to ban barrel shrouds as the thing on the stock that goes up.
 
MLeake,

You said it. You have limited experience with bipolar and, I would venture to say, you're no expert about diabetes either. And all your ridiculous comparisons are just that.

What I said isn't using any broad brush. It's a fact, unlike most of what you posted in this thread.

You may know guns and such but you should also know your limitations.

I'm not going to waste any more time on this. Argue, or debate if you will, with someone else who wishes to do so with you.
 
Water-Man, please share your credentials, other than having somebody very close who is bi-polar. I suspect you have none.

Or, if those are credentials, then I could claim to be quite the expert on diabetics - I am surrounded by them, including an in-law who does not drive because of sudden onset blood sugar crashes. She broke a wrist last year, passing out and falling to the floor when one crash caught her off guard.

The only "fact" you stated was that you have had experience with at least one bipolar person. Everything else you said was your opinion. Again, feel free to cite credentials or facts, beyond that.

As to my "ridiculous comparisons," cars driven by people having medical events can be quite lethal; I have never been assaulted by a bipolar, but have been assaulted by drunks and by hot-tempered idiots (they did not like the results); and yes, you do paint with a very broad brush.

JimDandy, in some ways, you are right, ideally this should be debated by experts. Unfortunately, I could very easily see some poorly drafted bills put forward in the near future for public referendum purposes, so even we layman should probably give the topic some thought.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top