• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the mentally ill be able to own/carry guns?

Should the mentally ill be able to own guns?

  • Yes

    Votes: 12 23.1%
  • No

    Votes: 34 65.4%
  • Unsure

    Votes: 6 11.5%

  • Total voters
    52

Luke Skywalker

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
1,151
Reaction score
1,022
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I say (emphatically) no - at least, not until they are pronounced 100% well and sane by a qualified psychiatrist. Just tired of hearing about mentally ill individuals shooting up schools/theaters, etc.

Thoughts/opinions?
 
Are there any particular criteria you had in mind to define "mentally ill"?
 
Depends on what you mean by mentally ill.


Certified dangerous by a couple shrinks, and/or involuntarily committed: No.


Potentially dangerous without their meds (ie some paranoid schitzophrenics): Probably not.


Minor PTSD, minor anxiety disorder, routine depression... these things should not bar you from gun ownership. They are things most of us will experience at some point in life.
 
Are there any particular criteria you had in mind to define "mentally ill"?

I'll defer here to Goshin's post - the first two criteria would definitely, imo, qualify someone as being seriously mentally ill....

edited to add (and to the above post by Goshin): the last criteria mentioned probably would not, imho, qualify someone as seriously mentally ill and thus should probably not bar someone from owning a firearm....
 
Last edited:
Depends on what you mean by mentally ill.


Certified dangerous by a couple shrinks, and/or involuntarily committed: No.


Potentially dangerous without their meds (ie some paranoid schitzophrenics): Probably not.


Minor PTSD, minor anxiety disorder, routine depression... these things should not bar you from gun ownership. They are things most of us will experience at some point in life.

The problem is my friend you don't know when one of these guys will lose it and go off the deep end......then it is to late.
 
The problem is my friend you don't know when one of these guys will lose it and go off the deep end......then it is to late.



NP, by some estimates half the soldiers coming home from war have some level of PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder). Most will get over the worst of it within a few years; very very few are actually dangerous because of it. Yet some Fed laws have vets worried that admitting to ANY PTSD will get their right to a gun taken away permanently due to some recent rules.

Lots of people deal with some (minor) depression or anxiety at some point in their lives. I myself have anxiety disorder, but it is minor and I can usually manage it without resorting to meds.

Lots of people have minor mental health issues... no reason to take their rights away unless they're certified dangerous by a professional in the field.
 
The problem is my friend you don't know when one of these guys will lose it and go off the deep end......then it is to late.

Just wanted to comment on this briefly....

As someone whom has struggled with mental illness in the past (severe ptsd, to split the hairline here), I can attest that qualified psychiatrists have a sort of "danger scale," which they use to gauge the level of hostility in their clients. Take me, for instance - I will be the first to concede there was once a time when I had no business owning a gun, albeit the person I was probably the most dangerous to was myself.... I've since made a full recovery and been pronounced cured by my physicians - this has just happened within the last six months or so. Now, I personally don't like guns and don't own any - however, I won't stand in judgment of those whom struggle (say) with MINOR psychiatric difficulties and own guns as well. From my experience, most people whom experience mild issues are in no way a danger to anyone - however, I do hear what you are saying. I guess there are no guarantees - one thing I've learned is that nothing is 100% - the only thing us humans can't escape is death.... They told me that when I joined the Navy and it has taken me many years to finally grasp the meaning of that phrase.

I guess what I'm saying, NP is that you have a valid point. From what I understand, the Colorado theater shooter (Holmes) was in treatment with a qualified psychiatrist before the shooting - he basically pulled wool over her eyes. So absolutely, nothing is 100% and guaranteed.... Generally speaking, however, I would tend to agree with Goshin, as MOST people who struggle with minor disorders are completely harmless.... Furthermore (from my experience), those people tend to be better off than normal people who've never been treated for any mental disorder.... But maybe that is another issue.

Please know that I do hear what you are saying....

edited to add: Now, some people are diagnosed mentally ill these days whom are completely normal - but, that is another topic altogether (I could go into what I believe to be a lot of over-diagnoses by a lot of over-zealous psychiatrists these days, but now I am getting off me own topic)... Anyway, hope all of this clears up my intent for this thread...
 
Last edited:
I say (emphatically) no - at least, not until they are pronounced 100% well and sane by a qualified psychiatrist. Just tired of hearing about mentally ill individuals shooting up schools/theaters, etc.

Thoughts/opinions?

It depends on what flavor of mental illness they have. If it's typical depression or anxiety, sure, why not? If they are paranoid schizophrenics, then I'd be hesitant to trust them with kitchen utensils, much less guns.
 
I say (emphatically) no - at least, not until they are pronounced 100% well and sane by a qualified psychiatrist. Just tired of hearing about mentally ill individuals shooting up schools/theaters, etc.

Thoughts/opinions?

My first impulse is to ask if this is a trick question? I would think the common sense answer is no, I would not a mentally ill person to own or have a firearm. Heck, I do not want criminals to have firearms either.
 
NP, by some estimates half the soldiers coming home from war have some level of PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder). Most will get over the worst of it within a few years; very very few are actually dangerous because of it. Yet some Fed laws have vets worried that admitting to ANY PTSD will get their right to a gun taken away permanently due to some recent rules.

Lots of people deal with some (minor) depression or anxiety at some point in their lives. I myself have anxiety disorder, but it is minor and I can usually manage it without resorting to meds.

Lots of people have minor mental health issues... no reason to take their rights away unless they're certified dangerous by a professional in the field.

Not sure I agree with you although I do agree with you on most issues,,,,

Hey I see your a Thomas Sowell fan. Me to he i one of my heroes........
 
My first impulse is to ask if this is a trick question? I would think the common sense answer is no, I would not a mentally ill person to own or have a firearm. Heck, I do not want criminals to have firearms either.

Heck no, not at all a trick question.... I see that someone actually voted yes, so I do in fact see the need for further discussion on this topic here (I would hope the person whom voted yes would comment, so we could see, at least, where they are coming from and if they can make a valid point).
 
I say (emphatically) no - at least, not until they are pronounced 100% well and sane by a qualified psychiatrist. Just tired of hearing about mentally ill individuals shooting up schools/theaters, etc.

Thoughts/opinions?

An awful lot of the time, mentally ill people aren't diagnosed. However, I think anyone prescribed over "X-milligrams" of a to-be-determined list of psychotropic drugs ought to be banned from owning firearms. Doctors would, of course, be the ones to come to a decision on level of medication it'd apply to. Hell, the medications themselves have unwanted and dangerous side effects.
 
The government has cut mental health funding over every administration since Reagan. They have apparently decided that mental illness is no longer their problem.

The question shouldn't be directed at mental health vs. gun ownership, it should be mental health vs. state priorities.

We would have fewer people on welfare, less violent crime, and a reduced prison population if the Fed would bring back its national mental health strategy.
 
An awful lot of the time, mentally ill people aren't diagnosed. However, I think anyone prescribed over "X-milligrams" of a to-be-determined list of psychotropic drugs ought to be banned from owning firearms. Doctors would, of course, be the ones to come to a decision on level of medication it'd apply to. Hell, the medications themselves have unwanted and dangerous side effects.

Absolutely, Maggie - and you are also right on about the meds.... The meds you describe are no joke and anyone on them should be monitored closely, imho.
 
The government has cut mental health funding over every administration since Reagan. They have apparently decided that mental illness is no longer their problem.

The question shouldn't be directed at mental health vs. gun ownership, it should be mental health vs. state priorities.

We would have fewer people on welfare, less violent crime, and a reduced prison population if the Fed would bring back its national mental health strategy.

Yeah, well, that wasn't the question.
 
Just wanted to comment on this briefly....

As someone whom has struggled with mental illness in the past (severe ptsd, to split the hairline here), I can attest that qualified psychiatrists have a sort of "danger scale," which they use to gauge the level of hostility in their clients. Take me, for instance - I will be the first to concede there was once a time when I had no business owning a gun, albeit the person I was probably the most dangerous to was myself.... I've since made a full recovery and been pronounced cured by my physicians - this has just happened within the last six months or so. Now, I personally don't like guns and don't own any - however, I won't stand in judgment of those whom struggle (say) with MINOR psychiatric difficulties and own guns as well. From my experience, most people whom experience mild issues are in no way a danger to anyone - however, I do hear what you are saying. I guess there are no guarantees - one thing I've learned is that nothing is 100% - the only thing us humans can't escape is death.... They told me that when I joined the Navy and it has taken me many years to finally grasp the meaning of that phrase.

I guess what I'm saying, NP is that you have a valid point. From what I understand, the Colorado theater shooter (Holmes) was in treatment with a qualified psychiatrist before the shooting - he basically pulled wool over her eyes. So absolutely, nothing is 100% and guaranteed.... Generally speaking, however, I would tend to agree with Goshin, as MOST people who struggle with minor disorders are completely harmless.... Furthermore (from my experience), those people tend to be better off than normal people who've never been treated for any mental disorder.... But maybe that is another issue.

Please know that I do hear what you are saying....

edited to add: Now, some people are diagnosed mentally ill these days whom are completely normal - but, that is another topic altogether (I could go into what I believe to be a lot of over-diagnoses by a lot of over-zealous psychiatrists these days, but now I am getting off me own topic)... Anyway, hope all of this clears up my intent for this thread...

You make great points my friend and I probably could be convinced to allow the people you and Goshin are talking about to be exempt from the restriction....I would say those kind of people would be the only ones I might exempt..........I truly believes all these people that are killing are crazy......No sane person would do it.
 
Are there any particular criteria you had in mind to define "mentally ill"?

Obviously, when the government says your mentally ill, citizen.
 
Depends on what you mean by mentally ill.


Certified dangerous by a couple shrinks, and/or involuntarily committed: No.


Potentially dangerous without their meds (ie some paranoid schitzophrenics): Probably not.


Minor PTSD, minor anxiety disorder, routine depression... these things should not bar you from gun ownership. They are things most of us will experience at some point in life.
'what he said
 
An awful lot of the time, mentally ill people aren't diagnosed. However, I think anyone prescribed over "X-milligrams" of a to-be-determined list of psychotropic drugs ought to be banned from owning firearms. Doctors would, of course, be the ones to come to a decision on level of medication it'd apply to. Hell, the medications themselves have unwanted and dangerous side effects.

This is a sensible idea. What I don't want to see is my fellow citizens being branded and being deprived of their civil liberties because of "mental illness."
 
This is a sensible idea. What I don't want to see is my fellow citizens being branded and being deprived of their civil liberties because of "mental illness."

Actually, it's not so much the illness as the unpredictability of the drugs used to treat them. Side efffects + depression can be a lethal combination.
 
Heck no, not at all a trick question.... I see that someone actually voted yes, so I do in fact see the need for further discussion on this topic here (I would hope the person whom voted yes would comment, so we could see, at least, where they are coming from and if they can make a valid point).

If someone voted yes, I would prefer he kept his justification to himself. I just assumed that 100% would vote no. But you know what they say about assumptions.
 
I'm rockin', Navy Pride. Haven't seen you in a while. Glad we ran into each other!

Yeah, I was on the beach for a few days (banned) but I am back with flying colors now........:2razz:
 
MORE THAN A few anti gun nuts consider one to be mentally ill if they own a firearm in the first place
 
Back
Top Bottom