Mental health gun law

[normiss 622]

Florida has a Purchase of Firearms by Mentally Ill Persons law pending.

Is this a step in the right direction?

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]Is this a step in the right direction?

[quade 3]

I'm just trying to grasp your reasoning.

Let's say a person recognizes they're going through a rough time. They're having difficulty coping with life issues. They're about to maybe commit suicide.

So what you're saying is, the thing that's going to stop him from seeking help is the idea his guns might be taken away?

"I'm a danger to myself, my family and society. I need help, but not if it means somebody could potentially take away my guns."

I don't think so. I think if he's rational enough to seek help himself, he should probably recognize he has bigger fish to fry than keeping his guns. For instance, using them on a family member and then himself. If he's rational enough to want to prevent something like that from happening, guns should be low on his priority list of things he actively wants to keep around.

On the other hand, let's say the guy is well beyond recognizing the danger he is to himself . . . is that the kind of guy you want to have a gun?

I just don't understand your logic.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Gravitymaster 0]

Are you saying that if a person is contemplating suicide, that denying him the ability to purchase a gun will prevent the suicide?

[DiverMike 5]

Also - are you saying that all people who feel they need to self-admit to get help are a danger to themselves/society?

For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

[RonD1120 58]

normiss

Florida has a Purchase of Firearms by Mentally Ill Persons law pending.

Is this a step in the right direction?

When I was employed as an assessment counselor in a psych hospital I observed the following.

Well over 95% of the patients were in some way coerced to seek treatment. That is a family member or LEO enforcing a Baker Act brought them in. My job was to convince them to sign in voluntarily. Involuntary treatment is limited to 72 hours in FL.

I can only recall two patients that were homicidal. Most are introverted suicidal.

My conclusion, this would be a worthless law. It would only effect the non-aggressive suicidal individual. The violent homicidal person will just kill somebody.

If more citizens are properly trained and have concealed carry permits the chances of surviving the homicidal person's attack are improved.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[Glitch 0]

I would rather see a passive check of medications perscribed to an individual... much like a check they do on you when you buy Sudafed because of meth-heads.

Randomly f'n thingies up since before I was born...

[normiss 622]

THAT should work glowingly.

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]I'm just trying to grasp your reasoning... So what you're saying is, the thing that's going to stop him from seeking help is the idea his guns might be taken away?

[Southern_Man 0]

quade

I'm just trying to grasp your reasoning.

Let's say a person recognizes they're going through a rough time. They're having difficulty coping with life issues. They're about to maybe commit suicide.

So what you're saying is, the thing that's going to stop him from seeking help is the idea his guns might be taken away?

"I'm a danger to myself, my family and society. I need help, but not if it means somebody could potentially take away my guns."

I don't think so. I think if he's rational enough to seek help himself, he should probably recognize he has bigger fish to fry than keeping his guns. For instance, using them on a family member and then himself. If he's rational enough to want to prevent something like that from happening, guns should be low on his priority list of things he actively wants to keep around.

On the other hand, let's say the guy is well beyond recognizing the danger he is to himself . . . is that the kind of guy you want to have a gun?

I just don't understand your logic.

Yes, anytime you create negative consequences for seeking treatment and stigmatize mental illness you lower the rate at which people voluntarily seek treatment.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[quade 3]

My understanding of the proposed change in Florida isn't to take away the guns of EVERYONE who seeks mental health care. It's to close a loophole wherein if a person sought mental health care and was adjudicated as being unfit to own a gun they couldn't take it away because the current law says they can only do that if the person had been involuntarily committed first. Essentially, seeking help was the equivalent of a get out of jail free card.

Read the proposed legislation.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

quade

Essentially, seeking help was the equivalent of a get out of jail free card.

which again immediately leads to the response gives by Southern and Law. Are you doing more damage than good with this change? And should the measure just be the number of crazy shootings? Or should 10,000 fewer people enjoying good mental health be counted on the other side?

You put up a scenario you felt was unrealistic - that anyone who decided they needed help wouldn't be worried about gun consequences.

But far more realistic would be friend or family member say: "Quade, you seem really unhappy right now. I'm worried about you. Please go see Doc Freud before something bad happens."

Quade: "I'm not having a great year, but it's not that bad. If I go, then I could lose my guns and right to get them back later, and it might hurt my job as well" (this concern probably rank higher than the gun concern - many Americans won't even take vacations out of fear of consequences).

A particularly self aware person might give his gun to a friend for safekeeping, but a lot of mental health issues are cyclical and he may ask for it back on a higher moment and be back to same position.

[Kennedy 0]

quade

My understanding of the proposed change in Florida isn't to take away the guns of EVERYONE who seeks mental health care. It's to close a loophole wherein if a person sought mental health care and was adjudicated as being unfit to own a gun they couldn't take it away because the current law says they can only do that if the person had been involuntarily committed first. Essentially, seeking help was the equivalent of a get out of jail free card.

Read the proposed legislation.

You're close but you're missing an important distinction. There's never been a problem with adjudicating a person mentally ill and preventing firearms purchases. What this bill does is add a section to the law giving doctors authority to rule individuals incompetent without court involvement.

I'm not familiar with FL law and their "baker act" and temporary restriction vs permanent. I can't say if this is a good tweak or horrible creep adding too much revocation authority with too little recourse.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[lawrocket 3]

I read the statute. It means that if a person voluntarily goes to a mental hospital (basically, if a person exercises some good judgment in spite of whatever the person is doing) and a physician agrees with the person that he/she is an imminent danger, then that person can be precluded from possession of a gun.

That person can petition the court and has the burden of proving that she is not a threat.

But - the analyst suggests 100k people will be denied firearms.

Also - there's a section authorizing the states to share this information with the feds, who most certainly don't have a database on guns.

And yes - now a person is no worse off if involuntarily committed by police than if they voluntarily commit themselves. So what do you think a person will do?

Finally, Paul - what happens to a pilot who goes to a therapist if word gets out? Think a deeply depressed pilot thinks, "losing my ATP license and my job will certainly help me deal with this depression?"

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 3]

Continue to try to deflect counselor, but the system in place for pilots appears to work just fine and with far more at stake.

Why you think that's an unreasonable standard for gun ownership has no relationship to its demonstrated effectiveness.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]Why you think that's an unreasonable standard for gun ownership has no relationship to its demonstrated effectiveness

[BIGUN 1,065]

>Continue to try to deflect counselor, but the system in place for pilots appears to work just fine and with far more at stake.

Now, you're on the path to the Quade I know.

Just hold your ground, man!!! That's the spirit..

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[quade 3]

The issue is, when people say there is a gun problem in this country, pro-gun folks reply, "it's not a gun issue; it's a problem of crazy people with guns issue."

Then when people try to pass laws to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people, pro-gun folks reply, "oh, but you can't take guns out of the hands of crazy people."

It's stupid.

We have to separate people adjudicated as dangerously mentally ill from having guns. We can't let them have the guns simply because they first turned themselves in. That's stupid.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[disastercake 0]

People receiving treatment for mental illnesses are rarely the dangerous ones. It's those who might need treatment but that need is not recognized, those with a sense of entitlement, and those in such a status where symptoms of mental illness are seen as positive traits who are dangerous.

Educate yourselves http://depts.washington.edu/mhreport/facts_violence.php

[kelpdiver 2]

quade

Then when people try to pass laws to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people, pro-gun folks reply, "oh, but you can't take guns out of the hands of crazy people."

no, they're telling you that it's stupid to take away mental health care from crazy people and expect good things to happen. Maybe even crazy.

[RonD1120 58]

kelpdiver

***
Then when people try to pass laws to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people, pro-gun folks reply, "oh, but you can't take guns out of the hands of crazy people."

no, they're telling you that it's stupid to take away mental health care from crazy people and expect good things to happen. Maybe even crazy.

And I will again reiterate, based on my experience as a counselor in the mental health, substance use disorder, crisis intervention profession, most suffering from mental illness are not homicidal. There is a fair probability for suicidal ideation.

Homicidal people, IMO, are best identified through the criminal justice system.

Mentally ill people who commit homicide, again IMO, are generally identified by those in close relationship but fail to say anything.

Society cannot prevent the latter.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[BIGUN 1,065]

quade

The issue is, when people say there is a gun problem in this country, pro-gun folks reply, "it's not a gun issue; it's a problem of crazy people with guns issue."

Then when people try to pass laws to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people, pro-gun folks reply, "oh, but you can't take guns out of the hands of crazy people."

It's stupid.

We have to separate people adjudicated as dangerously mentally ill from having guns. We can't let them have the guns simply because they first turned themselves in. That's stupid.

Ya know... in all fairness, I'm not qualified to discuss the top 50-75% of mentally ill. However, I do work with several Veterans Service Organizations and sit on a couple of boards. Just recently, I gave a seminar on PTSD to employers who have concerns about hiring vets.

What I do get concerned about is the blanket approach. In the vet world, those with PTSD who get concealed carry's will IN MOST CASES, get their psychologist's sign-off on the federal form. The blanket approach will do two things for this layer of mental illness. It will, 1) keep them from getting the help they need, or 2) create a group of law-breakers who will lie on the form.

For them, guns are a form of control. You take that form of control from them and they will actually do worse. In fact, for most of them you might even call it a pacifier effect. They feel like they can protect their family, friends and others (because they have been trained) from what they have learned is not a world of apple pie & Chevrolet and Sunday walks in the park. and that gives them a sense of calm in a world from which they've become distended.

Now, for the other types of mental illness, I really can't speak to that. But, casting a wide net is not a solution. There's folks a lot smarter than you & I about mental illness and politicians do not have the best track record for soliciting guidance from those better than them on matters for which they know not.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[davjohns 1]

Summary of my one case of personal involvement with voluntary / involuntary committment...

If someone puts in writing that they think you are a risk to yourself, you will be committed for at least 72 hours. If you fight it, they will take the document to an adjudicator who will fill out the paperwork and involuntarily commit you until the psychiatrist releases you. So, they lean on you to do the voluntary, because you will get out quicker.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[RonD1120 58]

davjohns

Summary of my one case of personal involvement with voluntary / involuntary committment...

If someone puts in writing that they think you are a risk to yourself, you will be committed for at least 72 hours. If you fight it, they will take the document to an adjudicator who will fill out the paperwork and involuntarily commit you until the psychiatrist releases you. So, they lean on you to do the voluntary, because you will get out quicker.

That was my job as an assessment counselor for a psych hospital. We harvested Medicare recipients on SSD.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[billvon 2,417]

>Are you saying that if a person is contemplating suicide, that denying him the ability
>to purchase a gun will prevent the suicide?

No - but it will make it a lot more difficult. And in many cases it is worthwhile making it much more difficult for someone to kill themselves. (Or drive drunk, or kill other people etc etc.)