The senate has recently passed a bill that would limit ownership of guns to people who have a documented mental illness.

Questions for debate:

1.)Should we restrict the gun owning rights of the mentally ill? Why or why not?

2.)If we limit the gun owning rights of the mentally ill, will they(the government) come after us next?

Um, Yes, the problem is, how do you define it? I would say anyone that has been committed for the last 5 years, or has been on forced meds, OR, if you have refused meds for a chronic mental illness.

This has been something we, in the mental health field, have been wanting for some time- even better, we want mandatory felony arrests for the mentally ill that assault staff or loved ones, and if they did it while refusing meds, make it mandatory minimum 5 years in prison, on forced meds. We don't want to criminalize mental illness- but we NEED to criminalize behavior, big time.

Most horrible crimes that you watch on TV have been preceeded by violent crimes in a mental institution at some point- and most of these problems would be prevented by harsh penalities and monitoring after release (probation). That way we won't have to track down who does or doesn't have a mental illness- deal with assaultive behavior instead.

Questions for debate:

1.)Should we restrict the gun owning rights of the mentally ill? Why or why not?
Yes if you can actually identify theses people which is now impossible. This came out of the VA Tech disaster. Now how would the gun store know unless his ID said NUTCASE all over it. Are we going to do this? Who pays for it and who is responsible at say VA Tech to make it happen. IMO it will be meaningless.

2.)If we limit the gun owning rights of the mentally ill, will they(the government) come after us next?


TYhey have and will in the future. The anti gun crowd is not dead – only laying low – for now. If a Dem is President in 08 with a Dem Congress look for a resurgence in efforts to take out guns.

It is actually quite easy- you would be suprised. We have arrested several mentally ill types trying to fraundulently attempting to buy a gun.

but once again, if we made violent crimes of the mentally ill against care workers a felony- this would be an issue that solves itself.

In my humble opinion the thought of my nephew, who had been diagnosed bi-polar/schizophrenic, having access to guns sends me into a tailspin! His physician is easily able to identify him as someone who should have no access to firearms. As always, the background check would reveal his history of mental illness.

"This has been something we, in the mental health field, have been wanting for some time- even better, we want mandatory felony arrests for the mentally ill that assault staff or loved ones, and if they did it while refusing meds, make it mandatory minimum 5 years in prison, on forced meds. We don't want to criminalize mental illness- but we NEED to criminalize behavior, big time. " AMEN! Why isn't this a no-brainer anyway? Hopefully, if the Senate has recently passed a bill making it illegal for the mentally ill to own guns, it will be enforced better than many other laws on the books.


2.)If we limit the gun owning rights of the mentally ill, will they(the government) come after us next?

We're assuming that "us" means normal? I don't think we can even make such a comparison.

1.)Should we restrict the gun owning rights of the mentally ill? Why or why not?
Despite the objections I have been reading, statistical definitions do work. Of course "mental illness" will always be an imprecise definition, and obviously it would neither be 100% effective nor 100% fair. Any process that is defined only by epidemiology is only effective as an aggregate result: many people who might resort to gun violence would be inhibited from doing so, but some might not be properly identified, and others might be unfairly included in the restriction. Moreover, the usual bureaucratic inefficiency in implementing in any such a regulatory scheme would also dilute its effectiveness. However, it is my opinion, the accidental denial of 100 or even 1000 other people the right to own a gun, who in reality might not have resorted to gun violence, is well worth the lives of even 10 innocent people saved by the proper denial of gun ownership to one or more violent nuts.

Statistical analysis is used in the establishment of rule in all parts of society, and few argue against its use in most cases. Why should those arguments, raised now in opposition to the vagueness of statistical regulation, have any greater weight here? Is gun ownership really that important? No one has to hunt to survive anymore, - it is a luxury, a hobby, but not a necessity. We deny DUI drivers their drivers licenses because there is a statistical association between a history drunk driving and the probability of accidental manslaughter or maiming of innocents. However, driving for most people is essential to people's livelihood, but gun ownership is not. By the logic of those opposed to gun regulation, DUI drivers should all be left alone to drink and drive because it is only a statisitical probability they may kill or hurt someone. How ridiculous is that reasoning? Gun regulation by statistical risk may not be perfect, but compared to other issues, it imposes few real burdens since private gun ownership is neither essential to either life or liberty in a modern society and stable democracy.

2.)If we limit the gun owning rights of the mentally ill, will they(the government) come after us next?
Come after what? Who really cares about gun ownership, and why? Guns are dangerous toys at best. What function does a gun really serve in modern civil society other than to divert the immature with its mesmerising novelty of implied power. Some do use them to hunt for food, but if you look at the economics of it, it is inefficient given the time, fuel, material, and licensing costs. It is at best a modern hobby, but for most just a useless and dangerous mantle decoration. I see nothing wrong with placing restrictions on dangerous things, - even less so for a dangerous thing that is not essential to anyone outside of a theatre of war.

Let's see... mentally ill... aggravated assault... how would one defend oneself against that charge... . Seems to me to be a waste of time in the case of someone who is mentally ill, because it could be argued that, in general, well... they're mentally ill. "My client pleads not guilty by reason of insanity, your honor. He was committed at a mental institution at the time." Granted, not all people who are mentally ill are legally insane, but a blanket statement about charging the mentally ill with felony assault seems a bit much.

I would be interested in reading your analysis of the economics of hunting vs. the economics of not hunting and thinning out growing herds of deer and the growing populations of game birds that contribute to the increase in insurance rates. Link. Not to mention the impact on the economy by eliminating an entire industry. According to one site, The US firearms industry includes about 200 companies with combined annual revenue of $2 billion. It can be argued that there is a large amount of money being spent by those that commit crimes using firearms, however, as it was apparent during prohibition, and is currently evident during the "War on Drugs" that making something illegal doesn't stop it from existing. How are you going to stop criminals from obtaining these guns and using them to intentionally harm other people?

I would also be interested in reading your supporting evidence that guns are not "essential to anyone outside of a theatre of war."

I disagree completely- I think we should permanently remove the idea of diminished capacity from the law- it is an outmoded concept that is rooted in old English common law that doesn't speak to the reality of the mentally ill. The mentally ill, with very few exceptions, know the difference between right and wrong, and are completely culpable for their behaviors. they also know they can get away with it due to thier special status under the law.

If anything, we go the wrong way here- if someone commits a violent crime that has been diagnosed with a mental illness, they should automatically get double the sentance.

Since pesonality disorders are considered a "mental illness"- pretty much every single person in jail is mentally ill today.

I believe there should be no statute of limitations on violent crimes commited by the mentally ill, so they can be charged and re-charged with the violent crime every time they are nearing discharge from the hospital after being found incompetent. Either you restore competancy to yourself, and face the charges, or you are never free again- ever.

I know two individuals, that absolutely knew the difference between right and wrong, and can control thier behaviors, one beat his roomate to death, the other shot a baby at point blank range with a high powered rifle because it wsa crying. Both of these men were free after 3 years of attempting to restore competancy. They knew how to not work with thier defense in order to cop the incompetant to stand trial statute. now they are free to offend again, and no doubt they will offend again, and in fact, one has been back twice on assault with a deadly weapon.

We need to slam shut these loopholes that let the most egregious offenders off the hook over and over, and permanently remove the defense of "not guilty by reason of insanity".

Worse yet, the WORST pedophiles I have ever seen have repeatedly used this defense, and are in active arousal stage, and have no monitoring whatseover, due to HIPPA laws. We need to modify HIPPA laws, so that when one is accused of a violent crime, all thier records become public property. Also, we need much stronger laws on forced meds, and much greater penalties for crimes commited while off meds.

The pendulum has swung too far in one direction, and we need to push it back to the middle a bit.

Well, as determining whether the nature of a person's mental illness prevents them from knowing right from wrong is one of the tests for determining whether or not they would be not an insanity plea is valid, I'd say you would have to take it up with the mental health folks who make those determinations. Those determinations differ from your observations.



Well, as far as I am aware, when an individual is deemed incompetent to stand trial, the statute of limitations is "tolled" or delayed until they are deemed competent.


It seems to me that you aren't pushing back to the middle, you are pushing it completely in the other direction.

CR, you won't hear this very often from me, but Amen, brother! I am right behind you, all the way! I get tired of seeing violent criminals spend a couple of years either behind bars, or even worse, in a state mental institute because they were sentenced based on their mental capacity defense just to go out and re-offend. This and other technicalities, IMO, are one of the reasons we have such a high crime rate in this country. If we locked people up for the crimes they committed instead of released them because of their 'mental illnesses', fewer criminals would be on the street committing crimes.

Here are the false presumptions you are making:
(1) sport hunting can only be accomplished with a gun,
(2) sport hunting by the mentally ill with a gun is the predominant form of wildlife thinning,
(3) sport hunting is more effective and preferable to natural predator hunting or scientifically based culling,
(4) there is a significant statistical correlation between sport hunting and lower animal-vehicle collisions,
(5) the problem is not with highway placement or design,
(6) the problem is not with human crowding or attention while driving.

Blacksmith industries went the way of the dinosaur at the turn of the century, but no one is complaining. The U.S. abandoned the whaling industry also. I don't think I have ever seen whale oil at the supermarket, have you? ...Besides, do you really want to make the implicit claim (as you apparently are) that the majority of gun enthusiasts are mentally ill!?!?

Drinking and driving is illegal, and people do it anyway. So are you saying we should legalize drinking and driving? Laws do help, but as already mentioned, won't be fool proof. Just because a prohibition may be circumvented does not give one reason to conclude regulation will have no effect. ...Besides, I think it is self-evident it would be harder for someone to flush a handgun or assault rifle down the toilet vs. a bag of drugs.

...How about because gun homicide and manslaughter increases proportionally to gun ownership? ...What is your supporting evidence of such value? Even sane people with the best intentions can be guilty of doing stupid things with guns, as Vice President Cheney has shown us. Given that inevitability, I would think restricting gun ownership for those people clinically most likely to do stupid things a very prudent precaution. Like not pointing a loaded gun at someone.
Image below: Source: Miller, T. and Cohen, M. "Costs of Gunshot and Cut/Stab Wounds in the United States, with some Canadian Comparisons. " Accid Anal Prev 1997; 29 (3): 329-41.

First, you made the blanket statement
Given the fact that you are referring to a question that is specifically about the "rest of us", what basis do you have about anything arguing about hunting and the mentally ill?

Secondly, since the natural predation has obviously not limited the population of wildlife even with current hunting regulations, I guess it is necessary to have this form of thinning. If natural predation was affective, then we wouldn't have all of these deer vs. car accidents.

Third, not sure what your point is with the rest of your points. Are you supporting me, or arguing against me?

Not sure where you came up with me claiming that gun owners are mentally ill, so please share with the class your position on that. Secondly, what does blacksmithing and whaling have anything to do with this discussion? I am honestly confused on this point.

So what you are saying is that there is no correlation between banning something and removing it? By banning something, only law abiding citizens will be without and criminals will still possess. Just curious how I implied drinking and driving should be legalized. Your point supports mine prefectly. Since drinkin and driving is illegal, just as you would like to see guns illegal, people still drink and drive, but now it is illegal. People would still own guns, but only criminals would. Thanks for helping me make my point.

Please point us in the direction to read your supporting evidence that lowering gun ownership will lessen the violent crimes committed with firearms. Because one person, the VP as you have decided to use, had an accident, that does not support any claims that legal gun ownership increases crime. It just spins the focus of the discussion from one topic (gun crime) to another (hunting accidents).

Well, it could be a difference in state to state laws- but no, whether they know the difference between right and wrong may or may not be part of the competancy and culpability issue. We have 13 different LEGAL definitions of culpability, and the medical diagnosis can be different than the legal definition. One is for billing, the other is for legal issues.

We have closed the loophole to some degree here, with a new criteria and definition of "guilty but mentally ill".

the problem is, the rights of the patient to not take meds have been placed over the rights of the public to be safe from thier behaviors. And when they are arrested for a hienous crime, they can slip into the "not guilty by reason of insanity", even though there were found competant enough to refuse meds!

In our state, you have one year after being declared incompetant to restore competancy, or charges must be dropped. Unfortunately, the criteria for incompetancy is set in a way that doesn't match the criteria for commitment- and they should be the same. If you are too incompetant to stand trial, you are too incompetant to be free, and you have a demonstrated danger to self and others.

so, one year after a guy is been declared incompetant for killing a baby in a crib, too disabled to stand trial for murder- he is set free, with no conditions on his release! This is quite common throughout the US.

The other issue is the horrible violence we have to put up with, regular vicious attacks on our person- and no charges filed, and there are no consequences for behavior whatsoever.

I would bet you a thousand dollars that the V-tech kid assaulted someone in a hospital before, and it was vicious and pre-meditated. had we laws in place that would have arrested him, jailed him, forced meds on him, and as a condition of probation, kept him medicated for the rest of his days, we would have plenty of living folks at that college- and gun control wouldn't even be the issue.

We need to hold the mentally ill accountable for thier violent behavior, no matter thier mental status at all- for the good of public safety. Violent SHOULD be punished, no matter the mental status- not merely for revenge, but to constrict thier behavior for the rest of thier days- it may not mean a lifetime of incarceration- it may mean a lifetime of probation though, with forced meds as a backup for the rest of thier days. This is a reasonable response for public safety.

Also, confidentiality is a double edged sword here- we have allowed evil to be done under the guise of confidentiality.

We had a group home, in the same building with lots and lots of kids, that housed nothing but pedophiles. They had all been declared NGI, so no one was allowed to divulge to the public that these were sex offenders, and there was no tracking of thier activities, because they were allowed, as private citizens, to be completely protected by HIPA laws.

Of course, when one of them attempted to rape a child, all of this broke in the news, and when the news dug this up even more- we know that they had a bunch of pedophiles there.

The primary topic of the thread, of which I will remind you is: "Guns & the mentally ill". The paragraph you took was the conceptual conclusion to a longer discussion of guns and mental illness prior. The general importance of gun ownership or lack thereof is directly connected to the question of such ownership for the mentally ill. To use your own words: what basis do you have about anything arguing that the question "rest of us" is not about general gun ownership and the mentally ill? That is the question of the thread, deal with it or stop whining. Or make a legitimate point.

A resonable presumption, but a presumption nevertheless. Given that most natural deer predators have been suppressed in many areas, can you really be so sure of your conclusion about the ineffectiveness of natual predation? Moreover, if thinning were so absolute as to reduce the population so low that no accidents with deer occurred, what other disaster might that cause to the environment? Assuming deer-vehicle accidents are the only consequence of merit here, and sport hunting the only solution, is premature.

Aside from the minor typo in (5), which should have read, "the problem is not with highway placement or design", the meaning should have been straightforward. These were premises that I disagreed with, premises which were implicit in your comments, given the topic of the thread. Obviously, I think your line of thinking is not very circumspect, and it ignores other aspects of the issue which possibly address it with better result, or at least, more thought.

Let me remind you, again, that the context is quite obvious within the topic of the thread, "Guns & the mentally ill". Industries and products come and go, yet people keep finding new things to spend their money on. The illicit drug economy is also large, but does that legitimize it? However, on the chance you were attaching that economic concern to the actual topic at hand, which is a natural possibility (except perhaps to you, in retrospect), then the subtext logic of your post would be: "The mentally ill are denied guns. The enormous firearms industry goes down the drain as a result. Therefore the majority of firearm customers must have been mentally ill."

Nice try, but you didn't actually make a point there. You ignored the fact that making something illegal does make it less prevalent. Moreover, I am not really sure you can really make a solid case for comparing the frequent compulsion drug users have for drugs, basically addiction, to the same motivation impluse gun buyers may have. It wouldn't appear to work the same way since one must be obtained frequently, the other not. The mechanics of the infrequent purchase of a large object would affect availability differently than that of something needed frequently and is easy to hide. But even in the more intractable case of drug addiction, or drinking while driving, penalty does reduce that behavior generally, and provides a legal remedy for those in violation.

The evidence was presented right in front of your nose if you bothered to look, as there is a direct positive correlation between gun ownership and gun related deaths in the research presented. You can click on the chart to enlarge it. Since the figures included are inclusive of legal ownership as well as violent gun crime, you have no productive counterpoint here. Although aggregate results were presented, it really only takes one example of careless use to demonstrate the very real fact that even with "legitimate" use, competence is an important factor in safe use, and therefore I would argue, legal use. What better way to demonstrate how devestating incompetence can be with one who otherwise seems very competent? Limiting those who have a history of psychologic issues which would impair competence, therefore, would help limit gun related death whether by intentional violence or not. Gun crime and gun accidents are not unrelated on that basis, much as you might wish it so.

Image below referenced in the comment above:
Source: Miller, T. and Cohen, M. "Costs of Gunshot and Cut/Stab Wounds in the United States, with some Canadian Comparisons. " Accid Anal Prev 1997; 29 (3): 329-41.

um, let me help keep this debate back on track

1.)Should we restrict the gun owning rights of the mentally ill? Why or why not?

Of course we should, especially if they have been commited, or if they are refusing meds for thier illness.

2.)If we limit the gun owning rights of the mentally ill, will they(the government) come after us next?

No, this is no different than preventing felons from owning guns- it is not a slippery slope issue- we have had this restriction for years, and it has not led to gun confiscation of the general law abiding public.

Don't be a pompus ... Telling me to "stop whining" makes you look like a pompus idiot, don't do that. Here is what got me into the debate
Now, This question of the debate refers to the "rest of us", not the mentally ill, so quit trying to bully people around. Now, if you would like to get up to speed as to what we are talking about instead of changing the subject, please, tell me how you can explain how the economics of hunting make it inefficient given the facts that I presented relating to the economics of the gun industry and insurance industry. You made the claim, I am asking you to back it up. Also share with us any factual supportive evidence that making guns illegal would prevent criminals from obtaining them and using them to intentionally cause harm to other people. Please share with us how removing guns from the law abiding citizens is going to help our society. Here are some facts:

Link


Link

44 million people own 192 million firearms, yet fewer than 11,000 murders committed with firearms. If guns were the problem, wouldn't it be logical that there would be a much higher number of firearm related murders? If I am reading the calculator correctly, that is .000005 precent of the guns were used in murders. Maybe my math is off, so please help me if I am wrong here.

I will address the other points in your post at a later time, as I am going to spend the day with my family now. I would be interested in your reasoning for your position.

At what level of mental illness should gun ownership/possession be limited? Here's some good stuff you can use to defend your position. Here's some good stuff for the rest of us.