Are you too sick to own a gun?

[Scoundrel]

This is a surprisingly good article. It brings up a lot of good points and questions that I don't have answers for.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/18/16588357-anger-violent-thoughts-are-you-too-sick-to-own-a-gun?lite

A couple of excerpts:

"If there’s one thing Republicans and Democrats can agree on, it’s that mentally ill people should not have access to firearms.
But as lawmakers rush to restrict that access in the wake of recent mass shootings, mental health experts warn of unintended consequences: from gun owners avoiding mental health treatment to therapists feeling compelled to report every patient who expresses a violent thought."

“There’s one group of people who are gun owners who may reasonably or unreasonably think, ‘I’m not going anywhere near a mental health person, because if they misinterpret something I say as an indication I’m going to hurt myself or someone else, they’re going to report me and take away my guns,’” Applebaum said.

“Most of the things they’re discussing are totally irrelevant to helping people with serious mental illness,” Jaffe said. “No one wants responsibility for the seriously mentally ill.”

[chrish]

Not that they won't slide down the slope, but keep in mind, you have to be 'adjudicated' mentally something-or-other (ill, unstable, whatever the legal term might be), not just seeing a therapist, counselor, or anti-gun family doctor.

'Adjudicated' usually means that you were non-voluntarily committed to an institution for some period of time by a family member or court...or were found by a court or jury to be mentally whatever. Even in the most liberal states, most don't even include 'voluntarily committed', so you checking yourself into a facility _MIGHT_ not even prevent you from purchasing a firearm.

Is that a good thing, dunno. But I would argue that even IF a doctor had reported the VA Tech shooter, the CT shooter (lets say he had purchased vs stolen/taken guns from his mom), etc to the authorities, that its unlikely they would have been flagged at the level necessary for a background check to have stopped them. Now, they could put "I am a whack-job" on their forms, but I kinda doubt someone w/ crazy criminal intentions would do that.

Just some food for thought.

[Scoundrel]

Legally, yes, due process must be followed.

But... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2843390/posts

[OldLincoln]

Reminds me of jury duty earlier this year. The DA was trying a guy for DWI, but it became clear in his jury selection that the guy passed the alcohol test but had taken pain meds that affected his driving.

The DA started out by asking the jury "Do you agree that buzzed driving is drunk driving?" and poled the jurors. I said I don't know, define buzzed. He was baffled responding "you know like you had a couple beers and felt the buzz." I replied no I don't know. If you are talking about impaired driving, a lot of things can impair your driving without anything to do with drinking, like being sleepy or eating or changing a CD or talking on a cell phone." He was suddenly between a rock and a hard place. So he tacked on his last piece, "what about taking legal meds after having drinking?" I said if he isn't legally drunk he's not drunk. He came back with "What if he was buzzed?" I again said define buzzed. The judge jumped in at this point and said the is not a legal definition of buzzed.

I was the first juror excused. I don't know but I doubt if that jury would have found the defendant guilty.

So define mental illness - I dare ya. I think it's something you identify after somebody does something that harms people and is totally off the wall. I doubt that you can predict that behavior in the majority of cases. It tends to be reported that "Johnny was the nicest neighbor and always so polite. I can't imagine what made him kill all those people and eat them right there in the street like that."

[chrish]

Legally, yes, due process must be followed.

But... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2843390/posts

Yes, but that story is an aberration, even in today's climate. Pick something NOT evil in that story that doesn't need to be dealt with. It is just a weird, unfortunate chain of events that had all the government incompetence and big-brother components to turn into a royal mess.

It goes WAY beyond anything you'd ever want to believe could happen. There was a great Washington Times piece that I followed after the whole thing transpired. They violated (and are violating) a whole lot more than his 2A rights. If this is what we are up against, we have bigger issues than the hotline call that started it all. That's just jack-boot-thuggery by the DC police. Not unexpected mind you, that entire town is one big cess pool of evil and despotism.

Found It! If you really want to feel like crawling under a rock somewhere, read their 4 part piece on it (links at the bottom of each to go to the next article.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2012/may/23/miller-iraq-vet-brutalized-over-guns-dc/

[Scoundrel]

Reminds me of jury duty earlier this year.


^^^^^^^^^^^^
I love this post. :)

[Bawanna]

I've never given mental health doctors the slightest bit of credibility I don't think it's an exact science and doubt it will ever become one.

There are obvious ones of course that any third grader could point out, wandering around licking windows, etc but a lot of whack jobs are pretty much under the radar with no way to tell for sure.

I fear most that the government will come up with their own heavy handed committee to determine a guideline and use it for their agenda.

[downtownv]

These are very scary times,indeed!:2eek:

[muggsy]

Most "wack jobs" aren't violent. Some same people are violent. I think that the key word here is violent. We already have a law prohibiting those who have been adjudicated mentally ill from owning a firearm. Adjudicated means legally decided in a court of law.

[OldLincoln]

Problem is they don't distinguish. I know of a person who was shot point blonk in the chest by an AK47 in Afghanistan and is really messed up physically and has PTSD. Thing is she's practically terrified of guns and doesn't want one anywhere close. She may have PTSD bad but not a threat for violence. Yet the VA will block anybody with PTSD from a carry permit, and they call just about anything PTSD now that it's accepted and funding exists for treatment.

[Bawanna]

You think I'd qualify for that PTSD stuff, hanging around with Jocko so much and all? Just wondering.

[yqtszhj]

That guy didn't need guns in DC. Our gubment has made that the safest city in the U.S.A. :rolleyes: