- Joined
- Sep 16, 2012
- Messages
- 49,644
- Reaction score
- 55,257
- Location
- Tucson, AZ
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Obviously, when the government says your mentally ill, citizen.
Yeah, that's one of the big concerns!
Obviously, when the government says your mentally ill, citizen.
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.
Losing your right to a firearm should be a quid pro gun for medicaid/SSI
No.
Some people end up on medicaid SSI through ZERO fault of their own.
Doesn't matter to me how they get there. If the are living off others, then they should not be allowed to buy guns. If they have money for a gun, then they shouldn't be living off others.
Yeah, well, that wasn't the question.
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?
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?
One of those "grey area" questions.
A friend of mine held a burglar who picked a neighbor's door lock at gunpoint until the cops had arrived, a couple of years ago. It turned out, the guy was wanted for murder.
This friend is struggling with major depressive disorder for most of his life, and I was always apprehensive about a loaded Glock being within his reach at any time...You can say that it is his life, but at the rare moments when the pain is almost (?) unbearable - is it really his life, or his life is being usurped by the malfunction in his brain? Objectively, the man has nothing to be depressed about - he is rich, he is loved, he is an excellent scientist - and he knows all that; still, he always had this air of a fatalist who can see an upside in dying ten minutes from now. He would walk up, unarmed, to a known murderous thug surrounded by leather-jacket zombies, and tell him to leave someone alone - and the thug would fade away - feeling, perhaps, that his opponent is not afraid to die - and, while insinctvely admiring the "courage", I could not suppress my understanding that this is not courage at all - but a plea for a dignified way out.
I know he will never hurt innocent others. But...swallowing a bullet is so fast and clean. Not like the indecency of hanging or the cheesy melodrama of cutting your wrists in the freaking bathtub.
I am 100% "pro-gun", but if I were ever asked to decide whether he should or should not be allowed to own his weapons - I honestly don't know what I would do.
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....
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.
If those moments are rare then I think you have an excellent point that some people need to be protected against themselves. In cases where it's more or less constant and attempts at treatment have been made, i think it would be cruel to not let them go, however difficult that is. The 'having no reason to be depressed' ultimately does not matter from this perspective.
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?
I'd say that 30.43 % of posters here are mentally ill !
Even the so-called "semi-mentally ill", such as me, MUST NOT be allowed to own guns.
What we need is NON_LETHAL means of defense.
Why is this apparently so difficult ?
We should be thinking 21st century, not the 1700s....I think that this is part of the problem..
I'll admit that this is difficult to determine (we need better psychologists)..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.
psychologistThe 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.