Some With Histories of Mental Illness Petition to Get Their Gun Rights Back
By
quade, in Speakers Corner
QuoteIf you have perfect safety, you don't have much freedom. I prefer the mix that we have now, whereby we accept the fact that some tragedies will occur, in order to preserve the most freedom for the most people. And the only logical and just way to deprive someone of their freedoms, is when they do something overt to prove that they no longer deserve it. Until then, leave them alone.
Are you fine with people driving drunk? I mean, there are people who drive drunk daily and never hurt anyone! Should we only be concern after they kill someone?
I am a gun lover. I have always owned a gun since my first Mossberg 20ga. in 1970. My dad gave it to me for Christmas. I was ten years old.
I have no problem with a person who may be mentally ill owning a gun, providing that that person can be shown to be rational as mental illness has many levels. I know this from my own personal experience with depression and attempts at suicide.
My gun was taken from me by the St. Charles, MO. police, after I was found with my wrist slit. They returned it to me a week later. My family took it when they learned that I had it. I was going to shoot myself. I ended up trying to gas myself after. My neighbor found me unconscious in my Bronco. Today, I am grateful that I did not have my gun. I got the help that I needed from Dr. Gaioni, he was the psychologist at the St. Louis V.A. during that time. I owe him for helping me see past my depression. I'll be forever grateful. I am grateful that some decided that it was better to err on the side of safety than to suffer the consequence. It had nothing to do with my right to own a gun and everything to do with my safety and the safety of others. Was I mad when they took my gun? Damn right I was. However, at that time, I was not thinking clearly, therefore, I had no business having a gun at reach. Much the same that a drunk person should not be behind the wheel of a running automobile.
QuoteIf you want to pursue that goal, then the government should ban skydiving immediatly, in order to make us safe from further skydiving tragedies. Is that the kind of world you want to live in? Once you start down that slippery slope, there is not telling how far things will slide downhill.
Not even close to the issue. Unless, we are discussing a person who is exhibiting out of the norm behavior that would raise concern for his/her safety and the safety of others.
From the article: After a brief hearing, in which Mr. French’s lengthy history of relapses never came up, he walked out with an order reinstating his right to possess firearms.
I hope he is better and does not go off into the deepest end. His history, however, suggest otherwise.
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young
QuoteI would have a problem with anybody doing that.
Why? Could it be out of concern for the safety of your children and others?
QuoteAlso, what would you do if you found out that he's had the knife and sat in the park every day for 18 months and never harmed anyone.
If the person was not exhibiting signs that he/she is not in the right frame of mind and is coherent in speech and docile, then there would be no reason to suspect that the person may cause injury or death to another. On the other-hand, if the same person arrives to the park someday and is acting strangely out of place (gibbering, shows signs of discontent, lashing out...), then action is required before the situation spirals to the point of bloodshed. This is what I mean by erring on the side of safety.
QuoteDefine "severe."
http://www.odmhsas.org/eda/advancedquery/smi.htm
As per the guideline, "serious mental illness" is the proper term.
QuoteThe guy with the shotgun on his porch? Yep. If I feel threatened then I'm going to report it.
Define "threatened" and explain why your safety warrants trampling on the rights of a gun owner based solely on your "feelings."
I assume you do realize that your "feelings" have no basis in a court of law. The case in the op is not based on feelings. The man has a history of relapse that spirals into delusions. Loughner exhibited the majority of the criteria. He had no right to own and posses a gun.
QuoteBecause erring on the side of safety treats everyone as a danger.
Not so. Simply removing firearms from those who meet the criteria as defined in the definition does not imply that everyone is a danger. It would do more to promote greater gun safety in general as not allowing those who meet the criteria to not have guns. If and when they can show that they no longer fall into that category, sure, they should be given back.
"Rights" may not be taken away, however, they can be balanced against the rights of others. I, and others, have a right to be secure. This has to be balanced against the right of gun ownership, in some cases. Such being the rights of those who meet the criteria in the definition of serious mental illness. In such cases it may be better to err on the side of the general safety of the public and the person in question.
It is not a slippery slope. It is common sense.
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young
billvon 2,447
>Nope.
I can't believe you HATE GABRIELLE!
But seriously - I agree. Sometimes it's in the public's best interest to limit someone's ability to hurt others.
>Further, would you argue that her cars should be seized?
If she was unable to tell right from wrong, and could not be relied upon to not drive? AND her family wouldn't do it? Then yes.
>In fact, under the gun control scenario, after reports that she was shot the
>irst thibg the police shouldhave done was seize her cars . . .
If a doctor could say with authority "yes, I have examined her, and from now on she will never be able to remain reliably conscious, and further will not be able to tell right from wrong and thus refrain from driving" then yes, that would make sense. I doubt that would be the case.
JohnRich 4
QuoteQuoteIf you have perfect safety, you don't have much freedom. I prefer the mix that we have now, whereby we accept the fact that some tragedies will occur, in order to preserve the most freedom for the most people. And the only logical and just way to deprive someone of their freedoms, is when they do something overt to prove that they no longer deserve it. Until then, leave them alone.
Are you fine with people driving drunk? I mean, there are people who drive drunk daily and never hurt anyone! Should we only be concern after they kill someone?
Driving drunk is an overt act, the equivalent of waving a gun around in public. In both cases, that demonstrates a problem that warrants attention. No one here has said that you have to kill someone before anything should be done.
ChrisL 2
Quote
Can somebody explain to me how it makes sense to allow mentally ill people to own guns?
This entire process needs to be cleaned up.
15 years ago I was hospitalized involuntarily in the state of PA (a 302) I committed no crime and I was never arrested or convicted of anything. I was released a few days later, but I no longer had the right to purchase or own firearms.
4 years ago (11 years after that event) I finally went to court and had my rights restored.
I had to be evaluated by a reputable psychologist and had a court hearing.
I was found to be a sound minded, responsible person and the judge did what he should have and restored my rights.
Do you really feel that anyone that loses their rights for any reason of mental instability should be banned forever from ever being able to purchase or own firearms?
Do you feel that if a person at one point in his/her life shows signs of mental instability that they are mentally ill forever and that there is no recovery possible for all mental illness?
Once a loonie always a loonie?
My mighty steed
Yep. Not quite so dangerous, though, as the belief that mentally ill people have no rights.
Google Das Erbe... Hey, when you do what the Nazis started with, the comparison is there.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites