2aHawaii
General Topics => Legal and Activism => Topic started by: eyeeatingfish on September 17, 2014, 09:31:54 PM
-
I would like to pose my question to Edster earlier to everyone in this four, and see what people think as this seems to be one area of gun control with bipartisan support. I would like to hear different opinions on how to deal with this issue.
Take an adult individual who has serious mental disorders, any combination you can think of from basic mental retardation to disorders like paranoid schizophrenia or being psychotic, but that person has not broken a single law and has never threatened to use violence. Should anyone be able to restrict that person from possessing a firearm?
I ask because it seems to be that this is an issue where I see both parties agreeing on the gun control, that something needs to be done to keep the guns out of the hands of the crazy people. Problem is though that a paranoid schizophrenic is still a legal person with legal rights guaranteed by the constitution so if the 2nd amendment is black and white then we cannot prevent them from owning firearms, especially if they have committed no crime.
-
Until we actually invent a psychiatric tricorder, or the sorting hat from Hogwarts branches out, I'm fairly uncomfortable with the mentally challenged bearing arms. That being said, I have limited experience with some of these people who I feel certain would be safe, responsible firearm owners. If, you know, they wanted to be and were allowed. It's not if they are broken, but how they are broken that should matter.
-
I believe the second amendment is black and white.
http://www.gunsandammo.com/politics/mental-illness-and-gun-ownership/ (http://www.gunsandammo.com/politics/mental-illness-and-gun-ownership/)
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem"
"I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude." - Thomas Jefferson
An interesting article on this issue.
http://www.gunsandammo.com/politics/mental-illness-and-gun-ownership/ (http://www.gunsandammo.com/politics/mental-illness-and-gun-ownership/)
-
I believe the second amendment is black and white.
http://www.gunsandammo.com/politics/mental-illness-and-gun-ownership/ (http://www.gunsandammo.com/politics/mental-illness-and-gun-ownership/)
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem"
"I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude." - Thomas Jefferson
An interesting article on this issue.
http://www.gunsandammo.com/politics/mental-illness-and-gun-ownership/ (http://www.gunsandammo.com/politics/mental-illness-and-gun-ownership/)
Interesting article, the author seems to agree that guns should be kept out of the hands of those with severe mental illness but recognizes that it is very difficult to do fairly, constitutionally, and accurately. Thanks for posting it!
-
If a child of 12 knows right from wrong, understands the consequences of using a firearm incorrectly, has demonstrated the level of skill, maturity and character required to be a safe firearm owner, then an adult of the same mental capacity should be allowed to own firearms.
Some adults with retardation are able to function at a child's level. If that happens to be at a level described above, and there are no psychological defects as well, I see no reason to deny him/her the means for self protection and skill development.
Sometimes it's easier to teach a person with humility and limited measurable intelligence than an arrogant genius who already thinks he knows what you are about to say!
-
Until we actually invent a psychiatric tricorder, or the sorting hat from Hogwarts branches out, I'm fairly uncomfortable with the mentally challenged bearing arms. That being said, I have limited experience with some of these people who I feel certain would be safe, responsible firearm owners. If, you know, they wanted to be and were allowed. It's not if they are broken, but how they are broken that should matter.
Tom_G's comment cuts quickly to the heart of this matter. How do we tell who is, or isn't, mentally deficient?
What "test" could be devised that could accurately define whether or not someone should or shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm?
Let's not forget that empowering our government to make this kind of decision opens the door to a certain amount of abuse of said power.
As has been pointed out, there are those with certain mental issues, low IQ, mental retardation, etc., that could probably handle firearms safely their entire lives and never be a danger to anyone. Then there will be those with higher levels of intelligence that would be able to circumvent whatever process is put in place and wreak havoc amongst the populace.
Do I feel comfortable with mentally ill people having firearms? No, but until someone can guarantee me that because I say something someone finds offensive in a public forum and they decide I'm therefore "mentally unstable" I think I'll err on the side of freedom.
-
As long as they can pass the same written and practical tests that the rest of us do, and have not been convicted of any prior crimes, they should be allowed to possess a firearm.
Why? Because of all the things edster just said.
-
I used to be a habilitation worker for adults with intellectual developmental disabilities.
The thing is, there is such a BROAD spectrum of various mental illnesses and handicaps. Ranging from slight to severe, and everything in between.
There are some out there that require consistent one on one attention. And others who live on their own, work jobs, buy their own groceries and live their life.
The problem is that diagnosis, treatment and such are all subjective. It's not like being able to take a blood test or an x-ray to see accurately see "what' happening in there".
-
I used to be a habilitation worker for adults with intellectual developmental disabilities.
The thing is, there is such a BROAD spectrum of various mental illnesses and handicaps. Ranging from slight to severe, and everything in between.
There are some out there that require consistent one on one attention. And others who live on their own, work jobs, buy their own groceries and live their life.
The problem is that diagnosis, treatment and such are all subjective. It's not like being able to take a blood test or an x-ray to see accurately see "what' happening in there".
The same statement is true for all of society, not just those with obvious "abnormalities". We are all human, and therefore, we are all also subject to disease. Mental illness is such a disease. Regardless of the cause, it can affect every one of us.
With regard to society and a government, this problem falls into the category of "we do what we can, and we try to do better next time," because there will never be a 100% foolproof method of identifying the people most likely to come unglued and become violent.
Also, no two people are exactly the same. Two people with the same apparent trustworthiness may react to stress or chemical imbalances in the brain totally differently. One decides to create poetry to express what they are going through, and the other becomes Charles Manson!
-
I would like to pose my question to Edster earlier to everyone in this four, and see what people think as this seems to be one area of gun control with bipartisan support. I would like to hear different opinions on how to deal with this issue.
Take an adult individual who has serious mental disorders, any combination you can think of from basic mental retardation to disorders like paranoid schizophrenia or being psychotic, but that person has not broken a single law and has never threatened to use violence. Should anyone be able to restrict that person from possessing a firearm?
I ask because it seems to be that this is an issue where I see both parties agreeing on the gun control, that something needs to be done to keep the guns out of the hands of the crazy people. Problem is though that a paranoid schizophrenic is still a legal person with legal rights guaranteed by the constitution so if the 2nd amendment is black and white then we cannot prevent them from owning firearms, especially if they have committed no crime.
I wonder who this guy is referring to eh? Rofl.
So who would be the one to determine whether or not someone is eligible to own a firearm? Psychologists? Psychiatrists? How exactly would they determine with 100% certainty that someone is actually a threat to society?
From what I have observed, people within the mental and behavioral health field of medicine have no fucking idea how to determine whether someone is actually suffering from a mental disorder unless it's so obvious that pretty much anyone can conclude something is wrong with them. Even then, there's still 0 ways of determining if they're a threat to society.
-
Do I feel comfortable with mentally ill people having firearms? No, but until someone can guarantee me that because I say something someone finds offensive in a public forum and they decide I'm therefore "mentally unstable" I think I'll err on the side of freedom.
I suspect that is why the OP likes this idea. Now, the "authoritahs" are the arbiters of things, just the way they like it.
I despise control freaks.
-
Leaving who is free to exercise their rights to bureaucrats and politicians is a sure way to disaster. If this were the case then 1A should be regulated in the same manner. Words can be just as deadly if not deadlier that a loaded gun!
-
I work in the behavioral health field here in Hawaii. Given my experience in the field, no one with an Axis I or II diagnoses should be allowed to own a firearm due to their mental health instability. Even if someone is high functioning and stable majority of them are highly dependent on their psychiatric medications to suppress their symptoms (i.e auditory/visual hallucinations, homicidal/suicidal ideations, mood stabilizers). I've seen cases who were stable for months to years, relapse on meds and within a week become unstable, impulsive and a threat to themselves and others. It takes a large amount of paperwork to legally deem someone 'mentally unstable'. You have to be caught in the act of being a danger to yourself/others. The event in question has to be documented in detail, accompanied with signatures from licensed mental health professionals (therapists, Psy.D etc.) in order for it to even be considered by a judge who has the final say. If it's a yes, they issue mental health warrant, take the individual into custody and transport them to the designated psychiatric facility.
Cheers
-
I work in the behavioral health field here in Hawaii. Given my experience in the field, no one with an Axis I or II diagnoses should be allowed to own a firearm due to their mental health instability. Even if someone is high functioning and stable majority of them are highly dependent on their psychiatric medications to suppress their symptoms (i.e auditory/visual hallucinations, homicidal/suicidal ideations, mood stabilizers). I've seen cases who were stable for months to years, relapse on meds and within a week become unstable, impulsive and a threat to themselves and others. It takes a large amount of paperwork to legally deem someone 'mentally unstable'. You have to be caught in the act of being a danger to yourself/others. The event in question has to be documented in detail, accompanied with signatures from licensed mental health professionals (therapists, Psy.D etc.) in order for it to even be considered by a judge who has the final say. If it's a yes, they issue mental health warrant, take the individual into custody and transport them to the designated psychiatric facility.
Cheers
And in what way did these people diagnosed with Axis I or Axis II display behavior that was deemed a threat to themselves or others?
-
Since I haven't really chimed in on my own question, I will take that opportunity now.
I do recognize the inherent danger of giving the government power to restrict someone's rights because if a means exists then there is a possibility that it could be abused however I would probably have to agree with Sole's assessment of the situation as there may be individuals that are highly unstable. There are some people who are so mentally unstable that we take away their rights and confine them in mental hospitals. So if there is a legitimate process in order to restrict a particular persons freedom to be in public then I think there may be grounds to restrict a particular person from owning a firearm.
I think that anytime we are dealing with taking away someone's rights there needs to be a process that is overseen with checks and balances. I think a psychiatrist and a judge would need to have a say in the decision and the decision should have an appeals process.
Sole, a question for you. In your experience can someone be forcibly admitted to a psychiatric facility based on their diagnosis alone or do they have to have shown a history of violence/threatened violence/other crime?
-
Since I haven't really chimed in on my own question, I will take that opportunity now.
I do recognize the inherent danger of giving the government power to restrict someone's rights because if a means exists then there is a possibility that it could be abused however I would probably have to agree with Sole's assessment of the situation as there may be individuals that are highly unstable. There are some people who are so mentally unstable that we take away their rights and confine them in mental hospitals. So if there is a legitimate process in order to restrict a particular persons freedom to be in public then I think there may be grounds to restrict a particular person from owning a firearm.
I think that anytime we are dealing with taking away someone's rights there needs to be a process that is overseen with checks and balances. I think a psychiatrist and a judge would need to have a say in the decision and the decision should have an appeals process.
Sole, a question for you. In your experience can someone be forcibly admitted to a psychiatric facility based on their diagnosis alone or do they have to have shown a history of violence/threatened violence/other crime?
why would there be a diagnosis to begin with if they haven't committed a crime or an act of violence? Hmmmmmm? ::)
-
Since I haven't really chimed in on my own question, I will take that opportunity now.
I do recognize the inherent danger of giving the government power to restrict someone's rights because if a means exists then there is a possibility that it could be abused however I would probably have to agree with Sole's assessment of the situation as there may be individuals that are highly unstable. There are some people who are so mentally unstable that we take away their rights and confine them in mental hospitals. So if there is a legitimate process in order to restrict a particular persons freedom to be in public then I think there may be grounds to restrict a particular person from owning a firearm.
I think that anytime we are dealing with taking away someone's rights there needs to be a process that is overseen with checks and balances. I think a psychiatrist and a judge would need to have a say in the decision and the decision should have an appeals process.
Sole, a question for you. In your experience can someone be forcibly admitted to a psychiatric facility based on their diagnosis alone or do they have to have shown a history of violence/threatened violence/other crime?
From my experience, they have had prior history with the legal system or psychiatric care. It's an extremely lengthy process to have someone legally committed to a psychiatric institution because if it wasn't majority of the homeless here in the islands would be committed. Although there could be the argument made that it wouldn't happen because the state would incur the cost for their psychiatric care. Most do not have private insurance and are dependent on DHS to provide food (EBT) and General Assistance (Welfare) as well as Medical all from Mr. and Mr(s) tax payer.
-
If you never watched the Robin Williams movie "Patch Adams," you should.
Not to spoil if, now that I told you to watch it ... :rofl:
Let's just say, it drives home the point that, even though we might notice signs of mental illness and instability, it's in our nature to want to try and fix that person. The reality is, while symptoms can be controlled, the underlying disease is always there.
Do all mentally ill people turn to violence? No. So, as hard as it is to diagnose illness to begin with, it's even more difficult to predict the subsequent behavior -- ESPECIALLY when the patient is prescribed psychotropic meds.
I personally have been around a few people who had mental illnesses. Most were very happy, easy to talk to souls with an obviously skewed view of reality. One was very troubled, and she committed suicide after graduating HS, being married and having a daughter. Others in high school knew she has issues, but I didn't know until after her death. Another girl I dated once committed suicide just before her high school senior year.
It's always after the event we sit back and try to second guess ourselves. Could we have picked up on a clue that would have prevented a tragedy? And, if we preemptively institutionalize a class of people because they might be dangerous, are we violating their human rights, or protecting the rights of the rest of society to not live among possibly dangerous people?
One thing we should strive for is to separate the gun issue from the mental illness issue. We need to work on combating the underlying problem in ALL areas of our laws.
Should the mentally ill be allowed to:
- drive
- use power tools
- use knives
- use guns
- mange their own finances
- enter into contracts
- have or be around children unsupervised
- live alone
and so on. There are lots of laws on the books that protect the mentally incompetent from making contracts, etc. But, there are no laws that say we can lock them up BEFORE they hurt themselves or someone else. By then, it's too late. Look at Susan Smith, Son of Sam,. Charles Manson, Jim Jones, Elliot Rodger (Cali Student who went on a killing spree) ... Sometimes the person is just evil. Other times, they are mentally ill and don't understand that what they are doing is irrational and morally wrong, or maybe the illness convinces them they have no other alternatives than to kill themselves or others..
-
I think that what it comes down to in the end is, the person getting diagnosed.
While there are certainly some people so messed up it's plainly obvious they can't function in society, there are many others that maintain a façade of normality that won't be penetrated until it's too late. I would agree that persons with obvious mental issues and those that have been diagnosed and are being treated with medications shouldn't be allowed to own or handle firearms. These people have already demonstrated they can be a danger to themselves and others. The rub comes with those that manage to hide their problems. There is simply no reliable way to predict what every person will do, no law that will prevent people from committing acts of violence.
The trade off for living in a free society is risk. We do what we can to minimize it, but in the end it's still there. Safety from what others "might" do to you is an illusion, the risk can never be completely negated, only prepared for, and dealt with after the fact. No government or law can protect you. In attempting to, it will only suppress freedom of the individuals it's trying to protect while failing to solve the problem.
The real answer lies in the individual standing up for themselves, rather than expecting the government, or someone else, to do it for them. We used to call it " Being an American".
-
.
-
I work in the behavioral health field here in Hawaii. Given my experience in the field, no one with an Axis I or II diagnoses should be allowed to own a firearm due to their mental health instability. Even if someone is high functioning and stable majority of them are highly dependent on their psychiatric medications to suppress their symptoms (i.e auditory/visual hallucinations, homicidal/suicidal ideations, mood stabilizers). I've seen cases who were stable for months to years, relapse on meds and within a week become unstable, impulsive and a threat to themselves and others. It takes a large amount of paperwork to legally deem someone 'mentally unstable'. You have to be caught in the act of being a danger to yourself/others. The event in question has to be documented in detail, accompanied with signatures from licensed mental health professionals (therapists, Psy.D etc.) in order for it to even be considered by a judge who has the final say. If it's a yes, they issue mental health warrant, take the individual into custody and transport them to the designated psychiatric facility.
Cheers
Hold on, that's a pretty broad statement (including all folks with an Axis I or II diagnosis to be prohibited from owning firearms). First, let's explain Axis I and II. Under the DSM (Diagnosis and Statistical Manual for Psychiatric Disorders) IV, Axis I: This is the top-level of the DSM multiaxial system of diagnosis. It represents acute symptoms that need treatment; Axis I diagnoses are the most familiar and widely recognized (e.g., major depressive episode, schizophrenic episode, panic attack). Axis I terms are classified according to V-codes by the medical industry (primarily for billing and insurance purposes). That could include many different diagnoses with varying "severity" including Anxiety disorders, social phobias, PTSD, eating disorders, fetishism, and sexual and sleeping disorders. Using your suggestion would mean that any one experiencing PTSD and seeking treatment for it would be disbarred from firearms ownership. Are you suggesting this is an OK solution?
Axis II: Axis II is for assessing personality disorders and intellectual disabilities. These disorders are usually life-long problems that first arise in childhood, distinct from the clinical disorders of Axis I which are often symptomatic of Axis II. For example, a adult patient might have depression (an Axis I disorder) that is largely a result of a paranoid personality disorder (an Axis II disorder). And while you might assume this group of diagnoses might better represent those that should not own firearms, it includes, for example, dependent personality disorder, the oft mentioned "co-dependent" personality that frequently gets attention on afternoon talk shows.
To further complicate what you suggest would be a simple solution to the question posed about those with mental illness owning a firearm, the DSM V is collapsing "...[A]xes I, II, and III into one axis that contains all psychiatric and general medical diagnoses."
So, the simple answer using Axes as the sole criteria isn't the panacea for this problem.
-
LEO can MH-1 an individual who presents a danger to him/herself or others.
Similarly, mental health professionals can MH-2 an individual for the same reasons.
However, this is only a temporary, involuntary committment for psychiatric evaluation (assumimg the individual is MH-4'd by a physician, of course).
From my understanding, neither the MH-1 nor the MH-2 requires a pre-existing diagnosis or a demonstrated "history of violence/threatened violence/other crime," though such facts may factor into the physician's decision to sign-off on the MH-4.
... but we might be speaking about separate issues.
For those that aren't familiar with the documents/terminology being mentioned:
MH1 - "Involuntary Application for Mental Health Evaluation" - These "forms" used to be fillied out by LE when they thought individuals were a danger to themselves or others. These forms conveyed the authority for LE to involuntarily take the person into a facility for treatment. Now the police psychologist is responsible to make sure potential patients meet the inclusion criteria for involuntary evaluation. This is not an "arrest" per se but the patient can be handcuffed and transported via police vehicle
MH2 - "ex parte Order for Mental Health Examination" A judge, based on a petition can order a psychiatric evaluation. The petition can be from a mental health professional or care provider, but said petitioner cannot of their own authority commit or hospitalize the patient.
MH4 - "48 Hour Emergency Commitment" Generally done if a patient brought in for an examination under an MH1 or MH2 is felt to need continued hospitalization.
MH5 - Voluntary commitment
MH5a - Voluntary commitment of a minor
MH6c - Petition for involuntary commitment. Involves a court hearing. Maximum confinement is for 90 days and authorizes involuntary treatment.
In terms of limiting the ability to own firearms: An MH1 might not trigger such a prohibition as it is only for an involuntary evaluation and many times the patient is seen and released, especially if the involuntary examination was triggered by substance abuse (drunk). Same for an MH2. However, an MH4, MH5, MH5a, and MH6c would trigger a prohibition on firearms ownership.
-
It takes a large amount of paperwork to legally deem someone 'mentally unstable'. You have to be caught in the act of being a danger to yourself/others. The event in question has to be documented in detail, accompanied with signatures from licensed mental health professionals (therapists, Psy.D etc.) in order for it to even be considered by a judge who has the final say. If it's a yes, they issue mental health warrant, take the individual into custody and transport them to the designated psychiatric facility.
In my experience, it is not necessary to demonstrate any sort of danger or participate in any sort of physical event, in order for 'mental health professionals' to try to get you incarcerated.
You could be a student going to high school, state that you believe in the Second Amendment in a homework assignment, and the next day find yourself in the principal's and counselor's offices who then proceed to order you to undergo a psychiatric evaluation for your support of the Second Amendment.
-
http://youtu.be/DRSNmHLaenE (http://youtu.be/DRSNmHLaenE)
-
You could be a student going to high school, state that you believe in the Second Amendment in a homework assignment, and the next day find yourself in the principal's and counselor's offices who then proceed to order you to undergo a psychiatric evaluation for your support of the Second Amendment.
I strongly believe that is just where the boosters of this sort of "pre-crime" sort of stuff want to see it carried to.
I understand not letting the defective handle sharp instruments, chainsaws and such.
My issue is what it always has been: A massive distrust of authority.
-
Hold on, that's a pretty broad statement (including all folks with an Axis I or II diagnosis to be prohibited from owning firearms). First, let's explain Axis I and II. Under the DSM (Diagnosis and Statistical Manual for Psychiatric Disorders) IV, Axis I: This is the top-level of the DSM multiaxial system of diagnosis. It represents acute symptoms that need treatment; Axis I diagnoses are the most familiar and widely recognized (e.g., major depressive episode, schizophrenic episode, panic attack). Axis I terms are classified according to V-codes by the medical industry (primarily for billing and insurance purposes). That could include many different diagnoses with varying "severity" including Anxiety disorders, social phobias, PTSD, eating disorders, fetishism, and sexual and sleeping disorders. Using your suggestion would mean that any one experiencing PTSD and seeking treatment for it would be disbarred from firearms ownership. Are you suggesting this is an OK solution?
Axis II: Axis II is for assessing personality disorders and intellectual disabilities. These disorders are usually life-long problems that first arise in childhood, distinct from the clinical disorders of Axis I which are often symptomatic of Axis II. For example, a adult patient might have depression (an Axis I disorder) that is largely a result of a paranoid personality disorder (an Axis II disorder). And while you might assume this group of diagnoses might better represent those that should not own firearms, it includes, for example, dependent personality disorder, the oft mentioned "co-dependent" personality that frequently gets attention on afternoon talk shows.
To further complicate what you suggest would be a simple solution to the question posed about those with mental illness owning a firearm, the DSM V is collapsing "...[A]xes I, II, and III into one axis that contains all psychiatric and general medical diagnoses."
So, the simple answer using Axes as the sole criteria isn't the panacea for this problem.
Awesome, I figured someone in here would break down the DSM V for everyone in the forum. Thanks for that. You've made valid points to make me reconsider some of what I originally wrote. And it's great because that's why I enjoy participating in this forum. Great insight. It's a harsh reality but mental health illness are like cancer, potential remission but it does not go away. So as broad as my statement was I still believe that it is the right direction but it's definitely not the 'sole panacea'.
-
Hold on, that's a pretty broad statement (including all folks with an Axis I or II diagnosis to be prohibited from owning firearms). First, let's explain Axis I and II. Under the DSM (Diagnosis and Statistical Manual for Psychiatric Disorders) IV, Axis I: This is the top-level of the DSM multiaxial system of diagnosis. It represents acute symptoms that need treatment; Axis I diagnoses are the most familiar and widely recognized (e.g., major depressive episode, schizophrenic episode, panic attack). Axis I terms are classified according to V-codes by the medical industry (primarily for billing and insurance purposes). That could include many different diagnoses with varying "severity" including Anxiety disorders, social phobias, PTSD, eating disorders, fetishism, and sexual and sleeping disorders. Using your suggestion would mean that any one experiencing PTSD and seeking treatment for it would be disbarred from firearms ownership. Are you suggesting this is an OK solution?
Axis II: Axis II is for assessing personality disorders and intellectual disabilities. These disorders are usually life-long problems that first arise in childhood, distinct from the clinical disorders of Axis I which are often symptomatic of Axis II. For example, a adult patient might have depression (an Axis I disorder) that is largely a result of a paranoid personality disorder (an Axis II disorder). And while you might assume this group of diagnoses might better represent those that should not own firearms, it includes, for example, dependent personality disorder, the oft mentioned "co-dependent" personality that frequently gets attention on afternoon talk shows.
To further complicate what you suggest would be a simple solution to the question posed about those with mental illness owning a firearm, the DSM V is collapsing "...[A]xes I, II, and III into one axis that contains all psychiatric and general medical diagnoses."
So, the simple answer using Axes as the sole criteria isn't the panacea for this problem.
It would seem then that the biggest question is not whether we should keep firearms out of the hands of the insane but whether it could be done, effectively, objectively and consistently without restricting the rights of people that it shouldn't.
It is a hard line to draw but I imagine that someone could come up with a scenario in which just about everyone would think a firearm should be denied to a particular person based on some very serious mental problem. I think we can all recognize that even though we all have our guaranteed rights that some situation could come up where a right is not absolute...
For example if someone were discovered to have Ebola (or whatever serious deadly disease) in Hawaii but refused treatment I think most would want an authority to be able to restrict that person's movements. Even though the individual had committed no crime cause might exist for the denial of a constitutionally guaranteed right. I am not sure if that would fall under an MH order or not since something like Ebola is not a mental illness.
I think another real issue of concern is not where a line can be drawn but that the public keeps the government accountable. If we get a system that restricts people with a certain level of mental illness from owning weapons then the public needs to make sure the system is not abused.
BTW, where did you get the break down on the axis diagnoses?
-
why would there be a diagnosis to begin with if they haven't committed a crime or an act of violence? Hmmmmmm? ::)
In a school setting someone might be referred to a psychologist to diagnose potential disorders that could interfere with learning so that the student could get services to help him/her learn better. As for an adult I would suppose that a diagnosis would only come around if the adult by choice saw a doctor looking for help with a mental problem.
-
If you never watched the Robin Williams movie "Patch Adams," you should.
Not to spoil if, now that I told you to watch it ... :rofl:
Let's just say, it drives home the point that, even though we might notice signs of mental illness and instability, it's in our nature to want to try and fix that person. The reality is, while symptoms can be controlled, the underlying disease is always there.
Do all mentally ill people turn to violence? No. So, as hard as it is to diagnose illness to begin with, it's even more difficult to predict the subsequent behavior -- ESPECIALLY when the patient is prescribed psychotropic meds.
I personally have been around a few people who had mental illnesses. Most were very happy, easy to talk to souls with an obviously skewed view of reality. One was very troubled, and she committed suicide after graduating HS, being married and having a daughter. Others in high school knew she has issues, but I didn't know until after her death. Another girl I dated once committed suicide just before her high school senior year.
It's always after the event we sit back and try to second guess ourselves. Could we have picked up on a clue that would have prevented a tragedy? And, if we preemptively institutionalize a class of people because they might be dangerous, are we violating their human rights, or protecting the rights of the rest of society to not live among possibly dangerous people?
One thing we should strive for is to separate the gun issue from the mental illness issue. We need to work on combating the underlying problem in ALL areas of our laws.
Should the mentally ill be allowed to:
- drive
- use power tools
- use knives
- use guns
- mange their own finances
- enter into contracts
- have or be around children unsupervised
- live alone
and so on. There are lots of laws on the books that protect the mentally incompetent from making contracts, etc. But, there are no laws that say we can lock them up BEFORE they hurt themselves or someone else. By then, it's too late. Look at Susan Smith, Son of Sam,. Charles Manson, Jim Jones, Elliot Rodger (Cali Student who went on a killing spree) ... Sometimes the person is just evil. Other times, they are mentally ill and don't understand that what they are doing is irrational and morally wrong, or maybe the illness convinces them they have no other alternatives than to kill themselves or others..
Very good post on the overall picture of problems with mental illness and controlling those issues. People like to monday morning quarter back but sometimes things are unpredictable. Sometimes people see "signs" but ones that would not have justified the restriction of rights. For example, Adam Lanza was described as being odd, or weird, quiet, different etc. But none of these things would have justified extra restrictions on his access to weapons. Some speculated that he had autism, but that wouldn't have been justification for anything since people with autism are usually less violent.
My father adopted a child who has mild retardation. He won't let him go shooting because of not only some motor skill problems but because he is worried that his boy might do something bad. Keep in mind that this guy (my brother essentially) can hold down a job as a stock by so he still has functional capabilities. They live on the mainland so I don't have a whole lot of knowledge on the day to day things that brought my dad to that decision. It is tough issue.
As a child I was diagnosed with ADHD which got me into the special ed program even though I was not in any special ed classes. One day in high school I had to meet with a counselor/social worker who was just checking up on students in the program I guess and she was asking me basic questions like interests and future aspirations. I wasn't thrilled about the meeting so I sorta played a trick. When she asked about hobbies I mentioned shooting, when she asked about what i read I said gun magazines. When she asked about occupations I said I wanted to be a sniper. None of these things were lies per se, as I did shoot with my dad, had read a few gun magazines, and wanted to join the military but I knew it might get a reaction. Nothing happened to me as far as I know but I later found out she had nightmares or big fears about me doing something bad. Needless to say I did not go on a shooting rampage but who knows how that could have been turned against me with the citation of me having ADHD. A little scary I suppose but I am just offering that as my personal experience as someone with a "mental illness"
-
quote author=eyeeatingfish link=topic=16457.msg153931#msg153931 date=1412152340]
It would seem then that the biggest question is not whether we should keep firearms out of the hands of the insane but whether it could be done, effectively, objectively and consistently without restricting the rights of people that it shouldn't.
And that is the problem with using such broad measures or criteria. In the recent resident alien case that was deemed unconstitutional, the basis for that decision was that the prohibition (all legal resident aliens) was too broad. Or in the terms of strict scrutiny, not narrowly tailored to accomplish the goals of a compelling govenment interest. Not all Axis I diagnoses are debilitating or have a propensity to violence therefore to deny a core and fundamental Constitutional right based only on the fact that someone had a Axis I diagnosis is too broad, and therefore unconstitutional. I, for one, am not comfortable, given our government's history, of them doing anything "...effectively, objectively and consistently..." let alone ensuring that civil rights are respected.
It is a hard line to draw but I imagine that someone could come up with a scenario in which just about everyone would think a firearm should be denied to a particular person based on some very serious mental problem. I think we can all recognize that even though we all have our guaranteed rights that some situation could come up where a right is not absolute...
No right is absolute and is subject to restriction. On a case by case basis it would be easy to say Joe Smith shouldn't have a gun because of his severe mental illness. That is a lot different from saying everyone with a mental illness shouldn't have a gun
For example if someone were discovered to have Ebola (or whatever serious deadly disease) in Hawaii but refused treatment I think most would want an authority to be able to restrict that person's movements. Even though the individual had committed no crime cause might exist for the denial of a constitutionally guaranteed right. I am not sure if that would fall under an MH order or not since something like Ebola is not a mental illness.
We have public health laws that allow for quarantining individuals against their will. See HRS 128-129
I think another real issue of concern is not where a line can be drawn but that the public keeps the government accountable. If we get a system that restricts people with a certain level of mental illness from owning weapons then the public needs to make sure the system is not abused.
I disagree. Where the line is drawn is of the utmost importance. Keeping the government "accountable" is another issue, one that seems difficult on many fronts, such as Bengahzi, Fast and Furious, the prosecution of the Reese family......
BTW, where did you get the break down on the axis diagnoses?
Doesn't everyone have a copy of the DSM IV?
-
No right is absolute and is subject to restriction. On a case by case basis it would be easy to say Joe Smith shouldn't have a gun because of his severe mental illness. That is a lot different from saying everyone with a mental illness shouldn't have a gun
I think it would need to be done on a case by case basis not as a check box form that would automatically disqualify someone. Basically i think that if we thought "John Doe" shouldn't have a firearm then we should have to present that to a psychologist and a judge and get a ruling specifically for him. I think that should be the process when discussing taking away anyone's rights.
We have public health laws that allow for quarantining individuals against their will. See HRS 128-129
I have been trying to find an answer to that question, I will give it a read. I was going to call the health Dept today but got too busy.
UPDATE: I read through some of it and it appears to apply to situations when a state of emergency is declared. Having said that some of it sounds kind of scary in what laws the governor can suspend or create during an emergency. I can imagine the need for it but I can also imagine a worst case scenario of abusing it as well. "Compulsory immunization" can sound a bit scary.
I bet most cops have no idea what increase or decrease in laws they could enforce during a declared emergency.
It seems like chapter 325 is more applicable. It appears that the Dept of health has to petition the court for quarantine status unless the delay would be too dangerous.
I disagree. Where the line is drawn is of the utmost importance. Keeping the government "accountable" is another issue, one that seems difficult on many fronts, such as Bengahzi, Fast and Furious, the prosecution of the Reese family
I should have said that just as important as deciding where the line is drawn is keeping the government accountable. Where the line is drawn ends up being meaningless if the government crosses the line and no one fights back.
-
why should a psychologist and a judge have the right to take someone elses right away just because of their "opinion"?
-
why should a psychologist and a judge have the right to take someone elses right away just because of their "opinion"?
well, in california, it doesn't even take that for a "firearms restraining order"
-
well, in california, it doesn't even take that for a "firearms restraining order"
Oh yeah. I read about that AB 1014 that was passed a couple days ago. It's ridiculous. This is probably why the government was doing social engineering experiments that researched on "civil unrest".
-
why should a psychologist and a judge have the right to take someone elses right away just because of their "opinion"?
A system would need to have a check an balance to it. Requiring that both a mental health doctor and a judge are involved would be one way to reduce abuses of the system.
Can you think of a better alternative? Is there someone else you would trust more to have that authority? Who would you include/not include on giving the power to take away someone's rights?
-
The better alternative is to allow no one to arbitrarily take away one's firearm rights due to their subjective opinion on someone else's inner mental thought processes.
The only things which should be considered are physical actions (criminal record) and objective evaluations of mental and physical capacity (whether or not you can pass the written and practical tests in the firearm safety course).
-
The better alternative is to allow no one to arbitrarily take away one's firearm rights due to their subjective opinion on someone else's inner mental thought processes.
The only things which should be considered are physical actions (criminal record) and objective evaluations of mental and physical capacity (whether or not you can pass the written and practical tests in the firearm safety course).
And therein lays the problem. Most of what mental health professionals do is subjective, not objective. So creating some sort of system whereas the MH professionals would have to objectively evaluate a person without influencing the outcome by their personal bias (say against firearms) is a tremendously difficult task.
-
well, in california, it doesn't even take that for a "firearms restraining order"
The potential for abuse of that "firearms restraining order" is frightening. We already see the type of abuse in TRO cases so it isn't difficult to see how one pissed off family member could easily cause problems for an otherwise law abiding, gun-owning relative.....
-
The potential for abuse of that "firearms restraining order" is frightening. We already see the type of abuse in TRO cases so it isn't difficult to see how one pissed off family member could easily cause problems for an otherwise law abiding, gun-owning relative.....
Yup
It's very scary
-
The potential for abuse of that "firearms restraining order" is frightening. We already see the type of abuse in TRO cases so it isn't difficult to see how one pissed off family member could easily cause problems for an otherwise law abiding, gun-owning relative.....
It is meant to be abusive.
This law is nothing more than the progressive socialists running that state enabling their minions to impose their will upon those they consider "non believers".
The fact that more people are killed riding bicycles every year than have been killed by "mass" shootings in the last 14 years be damned. They will not be deterred by the facts or the evidence.
In fact, in the case they cite as the reason for this law, the murderer killed more people with a knife than with a firearm. Notice how they never mention that little tidbit of info.
-
It is meant to be abusive.
This law is nothing more than the progressive socialists running that state enabling their minions to impose their will upon those they consider "non believers".
The fact that more people are killed riding bicycles every year than have been killed by "mass" shootings in the last 14 years be damned. They will not be deterred by the facts or the evidence.
In fact, in the case they cite as the reason for this law, the murderer killed more people with a knife than with a firearm. Notice how they never mention that little tidbit of info.
The TRO law is not meant to be abusive it is an attempt to provide extra protection. I am not sure if any lives were saved because a TRO took away an abusive spouses firearms or not but I haven't seen any proof that it is just a gun grab by the anti gun crowd. They get the gun back at the end of the TRO, it isn't a permanent revocation of firearms.
-
And therein lays the problem. Most of what mental health professionals do is subjective, not objective. So creating some sort of system whereas the MH professionals would have to objectively evaluate a person without influencing the outcome by their personal bias (say against firearms) is a tremendously difficult task.
Indeed, but there do seem to be some problems in this world in which you may never be able to erase subjectivity. Some sports would be impossible to jude/referee if subjectivity were not allowed for example. Of course sports are not at the same level as rights but that was just to illustrate that maybe subjectivity cannot be eliminated from solving this problem. Sociology and psychology are not really hard sciences because humans don't always follow laws of nature/math/science, they won't all act the same way in reaction to the same stimulus.
Perhaps a system involving a judge and a psychologist could be developed with check box type criteria that would be objective so as to get a more consistent and reliable result? Problem with that too is that someone with enough intelligence might be able to pick up on standard criteria type questions and predict the desirable answers. It really is a difficult task.
-
The TRO law is not meant to be abusive it is an attempt to provide extra protection. I am not sure if any lives were saved because a TRO took away an abusive spouses firearms or not but I haven't seen any proof that it is just a gun grab by the anti gun crowd. They get the gun back at the end of the TRO, it isn't a permanent revocation of firearms.
You miss the point. I don't think anyone, and certainly I'm not, suggesting that the TRO process was purposefully designed to abusive, But that being said, it is very clear that it is abused. In a divorce one party takes out an unwarranted TRO because it may bolster their case, and likely their financial return. Having a TRO taken out on them, the aggrieved party takes one out on the other party, to get even. I've seen cases where self-inflicted injuries are used as a basis of the "he hit me...I'm afraid" complaint that resulted in a TRO.
Now, at least with the California law, any family member can make a complaint and the other party's firearms will be taken. It matters not that they "may" be returned at the conclusion of an investigation. What matters is that someone was deprived of their civil rights without due process. The fact that someone is essentially guilty, based on no evidence just the word of another individual, should worry everyone.
-
The TRO law is not meant to be abusive it is an attempt to provide extra protection. I am not sure if any lives were saved because a TRO took away an abusive spouses firearms or not but I haven't seen any proof that it is just a gun grab by the anti gun crowd. They get the gun back at the end of the TRO, it isn't a permanent revocation of firearms.
I call BS.
They knew the law would be abused when they wrote it. Anyone with even the smallest modicum of intellect would realize this, especially in hyper hysterical Kalifornia. How can I know this? They know the existing TRO laws are being abused, and they do nothing about it, citing "safety for all concerned" as their reasoning for allowing the abuses to continue. When have you ever heard of someone being prosecuted for abusing the TRO law? I personally know someone whose ex. has taken out multiple TRO's on him any time she can't get her way in an argument. The TRO is granted, without question, every time. She then proceeds to seek him out in an attempt to get him to violate the order. Has she ever been prosecuted for this? No.
As I stated in my earlier post, whenever the government writes laws that are meant to "provide extra protection", the only thing they succeed in doing is oppressing the individual rights of the citizens they're supposedly trying to protect.
-
New York next to pursue Gun Violence Restraining Order legislation
Only days after California’s precedent setting bill authorizing confiscatory gun seizures from those deemed a risk becoming law,
the Empire State may be next to examine the concept.
A new bill intended for the state Assembly, modeled after California’s AB1014, was debuted this week by a Manhattan Democrat.
Like the West Coast law, the first of its kind in the nation, it would set up a framework to deny firearm possession to those believed to be dangerous.
“So this is a bill that would permit family members or friends or medical professionals or law enforcement or really anyone who’s concerned
that somebody having to access to guns poses a serious danger to go to a court and present evidence of that, and if the court were persuaded,
they would be able to issue a temporary order preventing the person from acquiring or possessing guns,” Assemblyman Brian Kavanagh, author
of the legislation, told WAMC this week.
http://www.guns.com/2014/10/04/new-york-next-to-pursue-gun-violence-restraining-order-legislation/ (http://www.guns.com/2014/10/04/new-york-next-to-pursue-gun-violence-restraining-order-legislation/)
-
You miss the point. I don't think anyone, and certainly I'm not, suggesting that the TRO process was purposefully designed to abusive, But that being said, it is very clear that it is abused.
Absolutely agreed, I see TROs being used all the time in ways they weren't meant to. To affect child custody, to evict a tenant or a landlord, etc etc. I even saw a lady get a TRO on a cop because he kept citing her for parking violations and the judge granted it! When he found out what the lady did he apparently wasn't too happy with her.
Maybe part of the problem is that no judge wants to be the one to deny a TRO and then that is the one time someone gets killed.