As the mother of a son with a mental illness...he should never, ever own a gun, not even while on his med's that keep him regulated.akmom said:
Gun control....
- Thread starter bssage
- Start date
I think my wording was a little confusing. What I meant was... such regulations would only work if a person had sought treatment for a psychiatric condition. If a person never sought treatment, no one would know about their condition. I'd be worried about people forgoing treatment for that very reason... to avoid detection.
I'm for medical records privacy for many reasons, the most obvious is many people are discriminated against unjustifiably because of their medical history.( In almost all area's.)
I agree that our medical records should be guarded, and if someone whats to check it (even the law) they need to subpoena for it.
I just dont' think it should be made easily available for the government to examin. Consider people who go to therapy, for what ever reason, should that be reason alone not to allow them a gun permit, couldn't going to therapy mean a person may very well be depressed? Should depressed people carry guns? What if they're on medication and the meds work well enough that they can hold a job and support a family can he/she own a gun now? What if they were depressed 7 mos ago but not any longer according to their medical records, is it ok for them to own a gun? Or do we say that all depressed people should not carry guns?
Maybe you shouldn't own one only if you go to therapy for certain reasons other than depression or besides depression?? Who determines those reasons, and how do you detail each illness since every one is so uniquely different, See how complicated and misconstrued it can get.
The other problem is that if a person with mental illness had never sought help, or never went to a doctor there would be no record for gun control people to find, hence he/she may obtain the gun.
And we all know someone who we believe has some degee of mental illness, who we are sure should NOT own a gun, but just may get one because he was never diagnoised with a mental illness, because he never sought help.
So checking medical records only works if a person has a mental illness record to begin with. If he/she doesn't, it doesn't necessarily mean they aren't mentally ill.:wacko: and now own a gun!
I also believe the best way to find out if a person is unstable, or to look into his character is to confidentially ask neighbors, family, spouses, friends and even children, someone will let you know.
I agree that our medical records should be guarded, and if someone whats to check it (even the law) they need to subpoena for it.
I just dont' think it should be made easily available for the government to examin. Consider people who go to therapy, for what ever reason, should that be reason alone not to allow them a gun permit, couldn't going to therapy mean a person may very well be depressed? Should depressed people carry guns? What if they're on medication and the meds work well enough that they can hold a job and support a family can he/she own a gun now? What if they were depressed 7 mos ago but not any longer according to their medical records, is it ok for them to own a gun? Or do we say that all depressed people should not carry guns?
Maybe you shouldn't own one only if you go to therapy for certain reasons other than depression or besides depression?? Who determines those reasons, and how do you detail each illness since every one is so uniquely different, See how complicated and misconstrued it can get.
The other problem is that if a person with mental illness had never sought help, or never went to a doctor there would be no record for gun control people to find, hence he/she may obtain the gun.
And we all know someone who we believe has some degee of mental illness, who we are sure should NOT own a gun, but just may get one because he was never diagnoised with a mental illness, because he never sought help.
So checking medical records only works if a person has a mental illness record to begin with. If he/she doesn't, it doesn't necessarily mean they aren't mentally ill.:wacko: and now own a gun!
I also believe the best way to find out if a person is unstable, or to look into his character is to confidentially ask neighbors, family, spouses, friends and even children, someone will let you know.
I'm not sure how I feel really about gun control over all. I grew up with them. I am comfortable with one in my hand. I can shoot the hair off of a frog ass if need be.. but after my Mom was murdered by one, I choose not to own one. During her life when she had to hide at my house from her soon to be murderer, I often had a loaded shot gun in my closet. I sat with it at night. I was more than prepared to use it. I'm glad I had it. I like knowing that now, if I felt threatened by someone, I could cross the street and acquire another one.
I was treated for depression after my Mom was killed. I took medication for a while. I would hate someone searching my medical records to deem me unfit to own a weapon now. The problem that I see with almost every form of "gun control" is that at some point it does over lap onto our rights. And criminals don't often follow the rules to get their own. I feel like people with no evil intent would suffer while those whose intent is evil would just find another way.
What is the answer? I have no clue. But I do know that if at any point that I want another gun, I want the right to get it.
I was treated for depression after my Mom was killed. I took medication for a while. I would hate someone searching my medical records to deem me unfit to own a weapon now. The problem that I see with almost every form of "gun control" is that at some point it does over lap onto our rights. And criminals don't often follow the rules to get their own. I feel like people with no evil intent would suffer while those whose intent is evil would just find another way.
What is the answer? I have no clue. But I do know that if at any point that I want another gun, I want the right to get it.
akmom - you raise a good point. In response, I can only say that I don't believe having ever sought psychiatric help should be a precondition - rather, the nature of your disorder and/or the outcome of you treatment should be.akmom said:
That is true. Unfair discrimination against people treated for mental illness is rife, all over the world. On the other hand, sometimes it is necessary to "discriminate". Not all discrimination is unfair.NancyM said:
NancyM said:
I'm not actually sure if it still stands, but before our democratic government came in, you could be "certified unstable". Which meant you lost a lot of your rights as a citizen (well, a lot of the few we had, but anyway). Seeking psychiatric help did not automatically get you certified. You had to be unstable/unpredictable enough to actually be a danger to yourself and/or society.Mom2all said:
It is quite possible for someone who is in treatment/on medication to appear completely stable to neighbours and friends, but if he/she skips one pill... People with bipolar mood disorder, for example, are notorious for stopping their meds while in an upswing, because it feels great and they believe the meds hold them back.
To add to this, I don't think someone who has been successfully treated for depression, or even someone who has been stable on medication for another illness should necessarily be refused. I think, in someone like mom2all's case, it would be easy to see that what she was treated for was a period of depression - it isn't something that will impair he ability to function in future. For someone on medication or in treatment for something other than that, I believe that person's psychiatrist would be best qualified to make the call. Even someone who has never been diagnosed with anything before, has the capacity to snap and become violent. Someone who has been treated may or may not be a bigger risk than the general population.
I believe the risk of people being put off seeking treatment could be mitigated to a large extend by not making it a generalized rule (ie. if you seek treatment, you won't be able to own a gun).
There would always be those who will slip through the cracks. But I don't think that should be a reason not to try and I think the most effective way would be a combination of checking records and interviewing references. Every potential maniac that is disarmed is a win. I know it's a fine line to tread, but for the sake of privacy, access to your records can require written permission from you, and such written permission can be a requirement for a fire-arm license. That should reduce the risk of all and sundry accessing your records for no good reason.
After all, you shouldn't be given a license if you have something to hide.
Last edited:
I should have explained better. My old weapons are stored somewhere else. I own them. I just no longer wanted them in my home. I used them at a time I needed protection. I know longer feel that.. but if I did I'd go over and get them.
And to have a concealed carry permit in our state, they do a back ground like you were talking about and there is a waiting period. My concern was like as in domestic cases, a man convicted can not even own a gun. If we start looking in to mental illness.. people tend to go whole hog then they start making laws. I could see how at some point in Washington someone saying... "all mental illness" without consideration that someone like me, having been depressed for a situational issue, could be deemed a potential threat.
And to have a concealed carry permit in our state, they do a back ground like you were talking about and there is a waiting period. My concern was like as in domestic cases, a man convicted can not even own a gun. If we start looking in to mental illness.. people tend to go whole hog then they start making laws. I could see how at some point in Washington someone saying... "all mental illness" without consideration that someone like me, having been depressed for a situational issue, could be deemed a potential threat.
lol yes it makes more sense now. I thought you meant you will run across the street and find out if anyone there has a gun. lol :laugh:Mom2all said:
I'm not suggesting we give mentally unstable people guns, I hope no one reads that into my posts, I also know there are many so called 'stable' people who already own guns who defiantly should not!!
I don't particularly like having guns around me anymore either, but in the back of my mind I know there will always be people around us who have guns no matter what our laws dictate to us. Bad and good people alike all around us with guns...all the time.
So I think I will keep mine, always locked away in a safe place, but I'm not ready to give them up.
Sounds like a legal nightmare, trying to define the exact psychological parameters which make you eligible for a Constitutional right. And the law cannot be arbitrary and capricious, or a judge can toss it out. So how exactly would these laws define mental fitness, and could it do so without discriminating? I doubt it. Whereas a felony is clearly defined, committing it requires action, and getting convicted involves a due process. Acceptable mental state is difficult to define, beyond one's control, and impossible to prove. (It isn't illegal or even wrong to be depressed, and most of the time not even dangerous.)
What about a person's psychological state regarding politics? If you are relatively happy with your government, you're probably less likely to act out, right? Maybe your views are moderate, or extreme. That probably plays into your statistical likelihood of making a political demonstration (such as the Gabby Giffords shooting). Shall only moderates own guns? Maybe you're "extreme" on certain subjects, but not others, such as a teacher who is passionate about educational legislation. Maybe that's an "acceptable" reason for extremism, so it doesn't factor into the risk equation.
See where I am going with this? The road to hell is paved with good intentions. You could conceivably "weed out" entire groups of thought by depriving their supporters of select rights, arguing that's it's too risky for <I>them</I> to have. In the case of bearing arms, that would defeat the point of the second amendment.
Last edited:
Pardon me for asking, but I am actually quite puzzled by this, as an outsider not from USA. So - what <I>actually </I><U>is</U> the point of the second amendment?akmom said:
Hahaha, I love it!
It's so the people can rise up against a tyrannical government. Some argue that it pertains to having well-regulated militias, so states can defend their sovereignty. And for that reason, some people feel the second amendment is outdated, since firearms can no longer compete with our modern military.
I often hear the argument that other countries preserve their democracy without having armed citizens ready to rise up against a threatening government. So why does the U.S. need this? And I'm going to go out on a limb here, because it's kind of controversial. But I would argue that many other countries are kept in check by the U.S. I mean, how many times have we sent troops to other countries to defend their democracies, or impose new ones? To take a position in <I>their</I> civil wars? We've imposed our values on governments in Iraq and Libya in just the past year, and dozens of countries in the last half century. So I think there's kind of a perception that other governments - especially ones where the U.S. has significant trade interests - are kept in check by the U.S. or the looming threat of U.S. involvement. But who keeps America in check other than Americans?
It's so the people can rise up against a tyrannical government. Some argue that it pertains to having well-regulated militias, so states can defend their sovereignty. And for that reason, some people feel the second amendment is outdated, since firearms can no longer compete with our modern military.
I often hear the argument that other countries preserve their democracy without having armed citizens ready to rise up against a threatening government. So why does the U.S. need this? And I'm going to go out on a limb here, because it's kind of controversial. But I would argue that many other countries are kept in check by the U.S. I mean, how many times have we sent troops to other countries to defend their democracies, or impose new ones? To take a position in <I>their</I> civil wars? We've imposed our values on governments in Iraq and Libya in just the past year, and dozens of countries in the last half century. So I think there's kind of a perception that other governments - especially ones where the U.S. has significant trade interests - are kept in check by the U.S. or the looming threat of U.S. involvement. But who keeps America in check other than Americans?
I don't think that has much to do with gun control and more to do with the dominant country of the time policing the world, that role used to belong to England, it now belongs to the US, eventually, it will be a role that role will belong to someone else (my money is on China, seriously, without China we wouldn't have half the possessions we do).
Most countries that have strict gun control have some level of democracy, whether it be partial or full and have either never had issue with civil war, or it hasn't been an issue in centuries, therefore is not worried about it.
Most countries that have strict gun control have some level of democracy, whether it be partial or full and have either never had issue with civil war, or it hasn't been an issue in centuries, therefore is not worried about it.
With all due respect, I don't think America cares about defending democracy in other countries.
Where is America in Zimbabwe?
Where is America in Mali?
Where was America in Apartheid South Africa?
etc, etc.
What do all the countries in which America DID intervene have in common?
- Oil.
From where I stand, it looks an awful lot like America is simply looking after it's own interests.
Where is America in Zimbabwe?
Where is America in Mali?
Where was America in Apartheid South Africa?
etc, etc.
What do all the countries in which America DID intervene have in common?
- Oil.
From where I stand, it looks an awful lot like America is simply looking after it's own interests.
To me, it's not even the worst, in terms of being outdated.akmom said:
When you can influence the entire population through mass medias, education and religion, control 99% of the economy or use sound and microwave "non-lethal" mass dispersion canon, who cares about your population having <I>guns</I> ? Can the US citizen even get to the point where they would <I>want</I> to rise up against a tyrannical government?
What <I>is a tyrannical government after all,</I> when really what we already have is a tyrannical global economy and a tyrannical market, controlled by multinational corporations larger than countries and controlling what we eat, what we think?
We do defend democracy in many countries if they ask for our intervention. Maybe you don't get accurate information from your news media, I don't know. I would expect your country is simply looking after it's own interest, why shouldn't America?singledad said:
As ratified by the states at the time, the wording was,
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Obviously interpretation is the key arguing point.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Obviously interpretation is the key arguing point.