Some With Histories of Mental Illness Petition to Get Their Gun Rights Back

[billvon 2,426]

>It is based on the belief that a person might pose a danger
>to themselves or others.

Yes. A mentally ill person who threatens others with violence, by definition, poses a danger to others. A person who cannot tell right from wrong cannot be reasonably expected to safely operate any deadly device, whether it is a gun or an SUV.

>As far as I can tell, just acting weird, doesn't meet the threshold.

Agreed.

>A person who drinks alcohol could be said to pose a risk of bodily
>injury to themselves and others. Do you support pre-emptively removing
>their 2nd Amendment Rights even if they have never had a DUI and
>never exhibited violent tendencies?

Only if in addition to their drinking they have a mental illness as described above.

[billvon 2,426]

>Do you guys hate firefighters?

Nope. Do you hate Gabrielle Giffords?

>He can fight fires... but he can't own a firearm?

In some cases, yes. Just as some people can work for the military but are unable to drive a car due to losing their license.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>It is based on the belief that a person might pose a danger
>to themselves or others.

Yes. A mentally ill person who threatens others with violence, by definition, poses a danger to others. A person who cannot tell right from wrong cannot be reasonably expected to safely operate any deadly device, whether it is a gun or an SUV.

>As far as I can tell, just acting weird, doesn't meet the threshold.

Agreed.

>A person who drinks alcohol could be said to pose a risk of bodily
>injury to themselves and others. Do you support pre-emptively removing
>their 2nd Amendment Rights even if they have never had a DUI and
>never exhibited violent tendencies?

Only if in addition to their drinking they have a mental illness as described above.

Then you must also support removing their privilege to drive. Someone with a mental illness who also drinks is equally as prone to killing with a moter vehicle as they are with a gun. You must also support this action even though the person has never had a DUI or exhibited violent tendencies because the potential exists.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

How can anyone believe that people like Jared Loughner has a right to own guns?

Who is saying that? I am saying he HAD a right to owwn them until he acted in such a way that the right was taken from him. Saying he has the right to own guns is like saying he has the right to be free and in our neighborhoods.

He does not have this right. Not anymore. He had that right until he acted in such a way as to lose that right.

It's too bad people like you equate ALL mentally ill with him. A parallel would be to say that all people with HIV should be kept in solitary confinment. After all, they all have the ability and opportunity to spread it to others. After all, look at Gaetan Dugas. He did it and therefore everybody with HIV should be treated as if they will.

Oh, lawrocket, that's mean to even consider saying something like that. Yep. Equally cruel to those with mental illness who, for some reason, get the shit end of the stick. Ohhh! Jared Loughner was mentally ill. Therefore, everybody who is mentally ill is like Jared Loughner. Round them up! Take their guns. Knives! hammers! Anything! Put them away as a prophylactic measure. They don't need to commit a crime because they are mentally ill and might.

Quit using the present tense about a killer and equating him to the millions who haven't and will not hurt anybody. It's disingenuous and I consider it to border on evil.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

>Do you guys hate firefighters?

Nope. Do you hate Gabrielle Giffords?

Gabrielle Giffords has brain damage and personality changes. Who knows what she might do. Lock her up, take her guns, her right to vote and make sure that nobody could ever possibly be hurt by her.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[ECVZZ 0]

Quote

So no more violence jokes about skinny people.

Now that is funny.

ETA: skinnies make for much better reactive practice.

G. Jones

"I've never been quarantined. But the more I look around, the more I think it might not be a bad idea."

[Gravitymaster 0]

Why do people hate the mentally ill?

[ECVZZ 0]

Quote

Quote

How else can you shoot the liberals?

Could you say that to Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly?

Actually, I could say that to whomever I choose, as long as I'm breaking no law in the process.

G. Jones

"I've never been quarantined. But the more I look around, the more I think it might not be a bad idea."

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

How else can you shoot the liberals?

Could you say that to Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly?

Actually, I could say that to whomever I choose, as long as I'm breaking no law in the process.

A full 30% of people do not understand subtext nor sarcasm. The ONLY thing they can understand are the literal words in front of them.

I believe you've found one of them.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[ECVZZ 0]

Quote

Quote

How else can you shoot the liberals?

Not funny.

Terribly sorry to have offended your delicate sense of decency. My sincerest apologies.

Oh what the hell. On second thought, I really don't give a damn. Go ahead and take what I said about firefighters literally too.

Have a nice day!

G. Jones

"I've never been quarantined. But the more I look around, the more I think it might not be a bad idea."

[ECVZZ 0]

Mr Quade, I do believe you've hit the proverbial nail on the head. I can say that to you because I know you'll understand it, and not become indignant on behalf of nails all over the world.

G. Jones

"I've never been quarantined. But the more I look around, the more I think it might not be a bad idea."

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Quit using the present tense about a killer and equating him to the millions who haven't and will not hurt anybody.

He wasn't a killer until he pulled the trigger. Yet, all of the signs were there that indicated that he had the propensity to do so. Had his guns been taken from him a 9 year old girl would still be alive today.

I do not equate all with mental illness to the likes of Loughner. The issue is identifying those with mental problems that would more likely spiral to the depths that Loughner spiraled to. In his case, all of the signs were in the spotlight and ignored until two laid dead and the rest injured.

Quote

A parallel would be to say that all people with HIV should be kept in solitary confinment. After all, they all have the ability and opportunity to spread it to others. After all, look at Gaetan Dugas. He did it and therefore everybody with HIV should be treated as if they will.

If a person is demonstrating that their intent is to infect people, then yes, they should be dealt with before they infect others. (That really was a lame attempt to rile me, you have to admit.)
Loughner had, in fact, demonstrated that he had intent to harm others and he was not dealt with until he did what he did. All of the signs were there. All of the signs were ignored.

As for the subject in the OP? His own family is in fear of what he may do. They fear for him as well as others. The court refused to look at the signs and gave him back his guns. If he does decide to shoot one of those "bears", which may be a child, family member, or police officer, then who is to blame? This should not be about his rights, but about his safety and the safety of others.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[billvon 2,426]

>Gabrielle Giffords has brain damage and personality changes. Who knows
>what she might do. Lock her up, take her guns, her right to vote and
>make sure that nobody could ever possibly be hurt by her.

If her injuries result in, say, frequent and unpredictable losses of consciousness, would you argue for her to keep her driver's license?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Yet, all of the signs were there that indicated that he had the propensity to do so.

Psychiatrists are, with present state of science and art, usually unable to predict future violence without a history of prior violence.

Quote

The issue is identifying those with mental problems that would more likely spiral to the depths that Loughner spiraled to.

Okay. assuming that is the case and the guy STILL hasn't done anything wrong. Are you in favor of just saying that he is subhuman and not entitled to the human rights guaranteed others.

Quote

If a person is demonstrating that their intent is to infect people

How is that demonstrated? By a person who was kicked out of a college? By violating HIPAA? Yep - let's violate peoples' rights to privacy in an effort to ensure that there are people who shouldn't have the rights. That's why both DFWAJG and I keep pointing out the Constitution, which is admittedly a pesky document to anybody who wants the government to run roughshod over people.

Quote

That really was a lame attempt to rile me, you have to admit.)

Not to rile you, but to perhaps put it in a language that you can understand. People with HIV are treated like shit, and 25 years ago were treated FAR WORSE than they are now. There were movements to effectively segregate HIV infected into modern leper colonies, to deny them the opportunity to move about freely in society, etc. Of course, all of these were based upon sheer ignorance of the nature of the affliction.

It was a disease that went political instead of merely medical or epidemiological. Because of political forces, HIV positive people were oppressed and stigmatized to an even greater extent than we see with the mentally ill. Only nobody thought about taking aways guns from HIV positive. Gaetan Dugas (who likely infected/murdered hundreds or thousands) was used JUST AS LOUGHNER IS NOW.

It was not an attempt to rile you. The abhorrent treatment of the mentally ill is similar to the early stigmatization of HIV.

Quote

Loughner had, in fact, demonstrated that he had intent to harm others and he was not dealt with until he did what he did. All of the signs were there. All of the signs were ignored.

Nope. The predictive sign of "prior history of violence" was not. Of course, now you are advocating "thought police." If a person thinks it or says it, that's prison for you! That's institutions for you! No guns for you!

Quote

If he does decide to shoot one of those "bears", which may be a child, family member, or police officer

MAy be? They "may be?" You don't know this. My wife is a psychiatrist and she doesn't know. Those bears, however, were most likely "bears."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

MAy be? They "may be?" You don't know this.

Note that the tentative word "may" is in the context of a hypotheses and not a predictive.

Answer this. Would you be comfortable with a person whom is known to have a severe mental illness sit on the porch next door to you with a gun in his hand while your children play in his presence?

Would you be comfortable with a person with a known severe mental illness be on a playground, in the presence of small children, with a knife strapped to his belt, all the while gibbering incoherently?

In both scenarios, I would be deeply concerned with the safety of the children and would want the persons weapon taken from him/her.

Is it not better to err on the side of safety than to suffer the consequences of not doing so?

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Is it not better to err on the side of safety than to suffer the consequences of not doing so?

Ah yes, the argument of all tyrants, willing to take away everyone's rights in order to make them "safe". The reality is, there is a balancing act that must be performed between freedom and safety. If 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.

If 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.

The county attorney was there in court to represent continuing to hold the bear-whisperer's guns, and if there had been any history of violence, I'm sure he would have presented it to the judge. Apparently there wasn't any such history, or the judge wouldn't have restored the bear-whisperer's gun rights.

"In Germany, they first came for the communists,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist.

Then, they came for the Jews,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. 

Then they came for the Catholics.

I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me,

and there was no one left to speak up."


- Reverend Martin Niemoller, German Lutheran pastor arrested

by the Gestapo, 1937, a decorated U-Boat skipper during WWI.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

>Gabrielle Giffords has brain damage and personality changes. Who knows
>what she might do. Lock her up, take her guns, her right to vote and
>make sure that nobody could ever possibly be hurt by her.

If her injuries result in, say, frequent and unpredictable losses of consciousness, would you argue for her to keep her driver's license?

Nope. But driving a car is not a right. Further, would you argue that her cars should be seized? In fact, under the gun control scenario, after reports that she was shot the first thibg the police shouldhave done was seize her cars, bicycles, etc. Did she have a plane? Seize it. Give giffords, say, 30 days to fight it. If she faiks to demonstrate her present ability to operate the vehicles, then destroy them.

This isn't about revoking a license. This is about seizing a weapon on the basis of an allegation that a guy is mentally ill.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 3]

That's right JR, everybody that disagrees with your position is comparable to NAZIs.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]Would you be comfortable with a person whom is known to have a severe mental illness sit on the porch next door to you with a gun in his hand while your children play in his presence?

Would you be comfortable with a person with a known severe mental illness be on a playground, in the presence of small children, with a knife strapped to his belt, all the while gibbering incoherently?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

That's right JR, everybody that disagrees with your position is comparable to NAZIs.

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.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

If 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.

Quote

If 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.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[freethefly 6]

Quote

I would have a problem with anybody doing that.

Why? Could it be out of concern for the safety of your children and others?

Quote

Also, 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.

Quote

Define "severe."

http://www.odmhsas.org/eda/advancedquery/smi.htm

As per the guideline, "serious mental illness" is the proper term.

Quote

The 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.

Quote

Because 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.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[billvon 2,426]

>>would you argue for her to keep her driver's license?

>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]

Quote

Quote

If 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