• 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
ecofarm said:
Personally, I consider that to be one of those "you know it when you see it" things, but I'm sure medical professionals have specific procedures and diagnosis.
Click to expand...

But under what circumstances would a medical professional be able to make that determination?

What I'm worried about happening is for psychologists/psychiatrists to be able to prescribe someone as "mentally ill" during voluntary therapy sessions, and then that person will be unable to have a gun. Do you know what will happen if that is allowed? People will stop going to therapy. People that need therapy won't go because they are afraid they will lose their right to own a weapon. Then the threat of mentally ill people with guns will be even greater, since some people that genuinely need therapy won't go because of the fear of losing their right to own a weapon.
 
Voltaire X said:
But under what circumstances would a medical professional be able to make that determination?

What I'm worried about happening is for psychologists/psychiatrists to be able to prescribe someone as "mentally ill" during voluntary therapy sessions, and then that person will be unable to have a gun. Do you know what will happen if that is allowed? People will stop going to therapy. People that need therapy won't go because they are afraid they will lose their right to own a weapon. Then the threat of mentally ill people with guns will be even greater, since some people that genuinely need therapy won't go because of the fear of losing their right to own a weapon.
Click to expand...

You make some valid points, but imo, that is another issue altogether (and I certainly didn't intend for this thread to even go there in the first place)...

For starters, one can always get a second opinion (and a third - so on and so forth) if they don't agree with their diagnoses... That's all I really have to say, without veering off topic here...
 
Mentally ill people already own and carry guns. Any time anybody shoots some innocent victim, the NRA diagnoses mental illness.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
LOL, and that's what instilled discipline? They were a bunch of rowdy individuals until you locked up the guns, at which point they straightened up and became soldiers? Is that really what you picture happening in the US?
Click to expand...

They were always drunk when off duty.

I take life a day at a time. There is plenty of gun violence every single day.
 
Nightrider said:
You make some valid points, but imo, that is another issue altogether (and I certainly didn't intend for this thread to even go there in the first place)...

For starters, one can always get a second opinion (and a third - so on and so forth) if they don't agree with their diagnoses... That's all I really have to say, without veering off topic here...
Click to expand...

It's not another issue altogether, it's THE issue. If you punish people for seeking psychological help, you will have less people seeking psychological help.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
It's not another issue altogether, it's THE issue. If you punish people for seeking psychological help, you will have less people seeking psychological help.
Click to expand...

Unless there is a specific question you want me to answer regarding the topic I've presented, please see below:

1. I totally agree with you.

2. I don't wish to discuss this any further.... (in THIS thread)
 
I just have to say this:

My original question in this poll was: "Should the mentally ill be able to own guns?" Thinking at the time that it was a very simple question, I hardly expected anyone to vote yes.... I see that 29.27% (12 people) voted yes, 53.66% (22) no and 17.07% (7) unsure. Now, I've received some very intelligent and well thought out responses in this thread - however, I've also (frankly) encountered some extremely dumb ones as well. What can be so hard to answer as a simple question like the one I asked? Is it because some people here are merely playing games, or are they really that abysmally stupid?

To the ones whom (correctly) voted no: Thank you (and please don't forget to vote!!!) many times over!!!!
To the ones whom voted yes: I sincerely mean this - idiots like you should NEVER see the inside of a voting booth, as you are (in my book) dangerous to the national security of this country...
To the ones unsure: You are, imo, merely ignorant - but ignorance can be changed (stupidity can't), so good luck with that....

I may be banned for saying all this stuff, but do I care? I have a million other things I can be doing, than hanging on here, debating with people whom have no social redeeming value - AND should be taxed for the air they breathe, as they are human excrement (and I have no respect for human waste)....

So long DP and no thanks, I won't be back this time....
 
Wow op doesn't think the mentally ill deserve civil rights. How sad. Perhaps op thinks we should just kill them.
 
Navy Pride said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree 100% - You never know when ANYONE will lose it and go off the edge.

Could be a ****ty day at work, they could find they have cancer or that their spouse has been cheating for 20 years.

You never know when anyone's going to lose it. . . because if we knew that **** that would mean we could predict the future.

So let's just ban guns because of this horrific unknown! It only makes sense :roll:
 
Navy Pride said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not if you're carrying a gun, it's not.

If someone goes off the deep end, you kill them. That's the whole point.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
It's not another issue altogether, it's THE issue. If you punish people for seeking psychological help, you will have less people seeking psychological help.
Click to expand...

NO ONE should seek psychological help. There is no doctor-client privilege in regards to criminal law - nor privacy - for how often prosecutors release such information to the press. If you see a professional for counseling, exactly every word you say - and every word that professional says you said - whether you did or not - can be used against you in court and then even in the media.
 
Nightrider said:
I just have to say this:

My original question in this poll was: "Should the mentally ill be able to own guns?" Thinking at the time that it was a very simple question, I hardly expected anyone to vote yes.... I see that 29.27% (12 people) voted yes, 53.66% (22) no and 17.07% (7) unsure. Now, I've received some very intelligent and well thought out responses in this thread - however, I've also (frankly) encountered some extremely dumb ones as well. What can be so hard to answer as a simple question like the one I asked? Is it because some people here are merely playing games, or are they really that abysmally stupid?

To the ones whom (correctly) voted no: Thank you (and please don't forget to vote!!!) many times over!!!!
To the ones whom voted yes: I sincerely mean this - idiots like you should NEVER see the inside of a voting booth, as you are (in my book) dangerous to the national security of this country...
To the ones unsure: You are, imo, merely ignorant - but ignorance can be changed (stupidity can't), so good luck with that....

I may be banned for saying all this stuff, but do I care? I have a million other things I can be doing, than hanging on here, debating with people whom have no social redeeming value - AND should be taxed for the air they breathe, as they are human excrement (and I have no respect for human waste)....

So long DP and no thanks, I won't be back this time....
Click to expand...


It is a badly worded poll in terms of reality. I suppose I could start a poll on "Should someone be allowed to have a gun who is going to commit murder with it?" Yes or no?

The poll SHOULD have asked "should someone who had been determined by a licensed health professional to poise a risk to him/herself or others with a firearm be prohibited from having a firearm?"
 
joko104 said:
It is a badly worded poll in terms of reality. I suppose I could start a poll on "Should someone be allowed to have a gun who is going to commit murder with it?" Yes or no?

The poll SHOULD have asked "should someone who had been determined by a licensed health professional to poise a risk to him/herself or others with a firearm be prohibited from having a firearm?"
Click to expand...

I think your comment is well worth responding to at this point, Joko.

I'm not into second guessing things, so I won't second guess my poll. However, I will take what you said as advice and will use it going forward in one way or another - won't be posting in DP forums any longer, but you never know when your advice may come in handy (so thanks)....

I wish you and many others here the best - in your DP experience, as well as life.

:peace
 
Nightrider said:
I think your comment is well worth responding to at this point, Joko.

I'm not into second guessing things, so I won't second guess my poll. However, I will take what you said as advice and will use it going forward in one way or another - won't be posting in DP forums any longer, but you never know when your advice may come in handy (so thanks)....

I wish you and many others here the best - in your DP experience, as well as life.

:peace
Click to expand...

Dont't let them run you off, my friend. That is the perverse game they play.
 
joko104 said:
NO ONE should seek psychological help. There is no doctor-client privilege in regards to criminal law - nor privacy - for how often prosecutors release such information to the press. If you see a professional for counseling, exactly every word you say - and every word that professional says you said - whether you did or not - can be used against you in court and then even in the media.
Click to expand...

It really depends on the situation and the state. From what I understand, they aren't legally obligated to say anything as long as you're not professing that you're going to hurt somebody. If I told my shrink "I smoke weed to help my depression", that still falls under doctor-client privilege.
 
joko104 said:
NO ONE should seek psychological help. There is no doctor-client privilege in regards to criminal law - nor privacy - for how often prosecutors release such information to the press. If you see a professional for counseling, exactly every word you say - and every word that professional says you said - whether you did or not - can be used against you in court and then even in the media.
Click to expand...

There is perhaps need for reform since it discourages many from saying what's really on their mind, but others just need help and are willing to take the risk. Some shrinks though I would think would protect that information at any cost, much as a reporter protects a source even against court order.
 
Wait... 12 people said yes? Mentally ill people should be allowed to own guns? What the ****?
 
Bodhisattva said:
Wait... 12 people said yes? Mentally ill people should be allowed to own guns? What the ****?
Click to expand...
"Mentally ill" could be a learning disability or ADD. Your right to arms should be blocked if you've been determined to be incompetent or dangerous, not because you're dyslexic.
 
Jerry said:
"Mentally ill" could be a learning disability or ADD. Your right to arms should be blocked if you've been determined to be incompetent or dangerous, not because you're dyslexic.
Click to expand...

And how will mental incompetency be determined?
 
Jerry said:
"Mentally ill" could be a learning disability or ADD. Your right to arms should be blocked if you've been determined to be incompetent or dangerous, not because you're dyslexic.
Click to expand...

Those are not mental illnesses. They are learning disabilities...
 
Perotista said:
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.
Click to expand...

I voted yes. ANYONE should be allowed to exercise their natural INALIENABLE rights until they are brought before the judicial system and determined to be unfit. At that point then and only then should they be deprived of their rights. That is the ONLY and proper way to deal with this type of situation. Goshen in my opinion needs to clarify his reasoning and outline what method he prefers. This type matter is a judicial matter and should be decided in court. Its the reason we have them.
 
Jerry said:
"Mentally ill" could be a learning disability or ADD. Your right to arms should be blocked if you've been determined to be incompetent or dangerous, not because you're dyslexic.
Click to expand...

It's all my fault and I take full blame for this - I probably even should have used the term "crazy/dangerously insane people" instead of "mentally ill." But, since I decided to use the broader PC term, this poll/thread is a mess....
 
Good question. I'm not sure how I feel about the mentally ill owning guns. I guess, like others have said, it depends upon the severity. :shrug:
 
zstep18 said:
And how will mental incompetency be determined?
Click to expand...
The same way it is now.

DPCDA Guidelines

According to the DPCDA, a mere diagnosis of a physical or mental disorder in and of itself is not sufficient to establish lack of capacity. Rather, a judicial determination of incompetence should be based on evidence “of a deficit in one or more of the person’s mental functions.” Furthermore, the code requires a finding of significant impairment with respect to “the type of act or decision in question,” and the court may take into consideration “the frequency, severity,and duration of periods of impairment.”

Section 811 of the Probate Code divides mental functions into four broad domains in which deficits may be found. These domains are: (1) alertness and attention, (2) information processing, (3) thought processes, and (4) ability to modulate mood and affect.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom