• 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
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.

I disagree, my leftwing friend. :lol:
 
Losing your right to a firearm should be a quid pro gun for medicaid/SSI
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

Uh, maybe they owned guns BEFORE hand??

If something happened to you abruptly and you ended up on medicare/medicaid or SSI, would you sell of all your guns if you could help it? I know you would not.

So what about Seniors on Social Security... you want to take all their guns too?


Hey... news flash: there is a DIFFERENCE between people who fall on hard times unintentionally, and people who just lay down a quit trying. You need to learn that difference, I think.
 
Yeah, well, that wasn't the question.

I'm answering the question. Gun violence is not simply about crazy people having access to guns, it's about people with mental health issues who are being improperly treated who have access to guns. Almost all of the recent school shootings have been by young people being treated for mental health. The Sandy Hook incident was by a guy who was withdrawaling from his medication FFS.

The media loves to blame guns but it's cutback in mental health care that has caused this issue to come to a head.
 
Yes, with a qualifier. No if they have ever been convicted of any violent crime or are ineligible for a driver's license.
 
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?

Depends on the level of illness, and what the illness is. Not all psychological problems are debilitating.
 
Isn't it like 2/3 mentally ill don't even seek treatment? I would think such bans would discourage them from doing so even more, especially the PTSD veterans crowd. "Mentally ill" is such a broad category and for that matter so are some of the illnesses. There's a reason doctors will ask if their patient has thoughts of harming self/others. Obviously if they say "Yes, and I'm going to do it right after this appointment," then I would say they should not be allowed around guns. Anything other than a confession, though, is just going off of assumption or probability. The vast majority, even those who have these thoughts, never harm anyone.
 
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.
 
Since I am a firm believer in equality I say hell no, not never!
 
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 voted "unsure."

What are we calling "mentally ill?"

Does a phobia count? Mild depression? Anxiety?

Here's the thing: most people will experience some degree of mental illness at some point in their lives. So what kind of criteria are you using here?

Here's the criteria I am using: people who have psychotic disorders during which they are known to be paranoid and/or violent. I know a couple, and they don't think they should have guns either, even when medicated and well.

The thing with psychotic disorders is that treatment is a life-long, on-going process in most cases. The meds that work at 20 may not work at 40. The side effects may become severe enough to necessitate a med switch. Either of those things can destabilize the person in the short or long term. And finally, for a lot of people with psychotic disorders, no med can give them 100% remission. For some, the best they can hope for is that the symptoms will just become tolerable.
 
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.

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'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....

And your professional psychiatric training and certifications allow you to make that comment, right?

Pshaw.
 
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.

Unless you are a psychic, prophet or a soothsayer, welcome to the real world.
 
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.

Ayup!

The key is what is bad, what is marginal, and what is no problem.

The other key is what is treatable, and what is not.
 
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.

EXCELLENT user name!
 
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..
 
This is a stupid poll.

Maybe I should start one asking: "Should a woman be able to use a firearm to prevent being raped and her and her whole family murdered?"
 
With the thought that a piece of legislation should be positive, and not useless, was the Newtown, Conn mass murderer's mother completely mentally competent ?
Food for thought...
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..

For ONCE, I think I actually agree with a progressive - lol! :)
 
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.
I'll admit that this is difficult to determine (we need better psychologists)..
Non-lethal is the answer.
Lethal weapons for our police....this is where I feel the England is wrong..
And plenty of ammo and weapons for our hunters, plus open season on deer.
 
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.
psychologist
Agree, BUT, we must have better psychologists ..about 5 years ago, I ran into a complete idiot working at the VA clinic, also in the "private sector".....just as bad
This is a very complex field, and I think that very few have the native ability to be successful...
 
Back
Top Bottom