Mental health awareness in the gun community (health care, weapon, solutions)

[Mr.Retired]

Originally Posted by eddie gein

The question is at what point is a person crazy enough to lose his 2A rights if he hasn't harmed anyone.

The drunk doesn't have to have an accident to have his license revoked. He just has to get caught driving with a certain BAC. Unfortunately we can't do that with mental illness.

Doesn't matter. If you can't pass the eye test ( even with glasses ) you don't get to drive.

[Brave New World]

Originally Posted by Mr.Retired

Opinion:



A drunk gets into an accident with his car and his license is revoked.
Mentally ill people need to be banned from access to firearms.

One in four Americans has a mental illness and in terms of young people it's around one in three.

Also mental illness ranges from depression and anxiety which are common, through to psychosis and schizophrenia, through to bipolar thriugh to personality disorders. Even earing disorders are labelled mental illness as is attention deficit disorder and numerous other things.

Where do you draw the line, and when do you decide that people can have guns again, and just taking guns from everyne labelled mentally ill, is going to mean between 80 million and a 100 million Americans could be denied firearms licences, then you have dementia and other such conditions.

Then you have people banned on top of this for offences involving violence, or offences involving dishonesty or a disregard for public safety, or cautions held by such person, we well as alleged or known involvement in criminal offences, particularly those involving the use of violence or threat of violence (including Domestic Violence), or firearms, or evidence of associations with known criminals. Whilst any evidence of alcohol or drug abuse would also see a person labelled unfit to possess a firearm due to the possible impairment of judgement and loss of self control.

Your medical records and poice records may be used in future to stop Americans owning guns, as is the case in other countries,

Here's the general guidance regarding fitness to be entrutsted with a firearm in England & Wales.

Fitness to be Entrusted with Firearms - Durham Constabulary

[drinkthekoolaid]

Here's the problem in NY State and why gun owners are so against this. It's ripe for gvt abuse

If a perfectly sane, mentally sound, law abiding gun owner maybe has a rough spot in their life. Say they get fired at work or their wife leaves them and they slip into depression or suffer some anxiety. If they recognize this and admit they need help, by going to the Dr and seeking treatment they will most likely lose their pistol permit and have their guns seized. Good luck ever getting them back.

It simply discourages people from seeking help. Period.

[Frank DeForrest]

how long before wanting to own or posses a firearm is considered a mental illness?

[NY_refugee87]

Originally Posted by drinkthekoolaid

Here's the problem in NY State and why gun owners are so against this. It's ripe for gvt abuse

If a perfectly sane, mentally sound, law abiding gun owner maybe has a rough spot in their life. Say they get fired at work or their wife leaves them and they slip into depression or suffer some anxiety. If they recognize this and admit they need help, by going to the Dr and seeking treatment they will most likely lose their pistol permit and have their guns seized. Good luck ever getting them back.

It simply discourages people from seeking help. Period.

Did you know that if you're prescribed Chantix, the quit smoking drug, state troopers come to seize firearms?
True story.
Shrinks used it to treat some form of mental illness. Safeact made it where if you were being treated with some sort of medication used for depression, anxiety, etc, you lost what you possessed.
Co-worker lost his firearms without compensation because he quit smoking and was prescribed chantix. I told him go cold turkey... but nooo....

[NY_refugee87]

Originally Posted by eddie gein

The question is at what point is a person crazy enough to lose his 2A rights if he hasn't harmed anyone.

The drunk doesn't have to have an accident to have his license revoked. He just has to get caught driving with a certain BAC. Unfortunately we can't do that with mental illness.

We do do that with mental illness.
It's called being adjudicated mentally defective.

Then there's also, getting caught brandishing a firearm, similar to swerving down the road, called presenting a danger to the public.
Crashing would be the equivalent to a negligent discharge, or firing a shot in anger/intent to do harm against another.

[NY_refugee87]

Originally Posted by Mr.Retired

Opinion:



A drunk gets into an accident with his car and his license is revoked.
Mentally ill people need to be banned from access to firearms.

Anyone who commits a crime with a firearm, loses access to firearms.
Anyone who commits a felony, loses access to firearms.
Anyone adjudicated mentally defective, loses access to firearms.

Difference between a drunk driver and a homicidal scumbag?
You can't defend yourself against a drunk driver piloting a multi thousand pound projectile. If you witness it you can call police to intervene and hopefully they'll intervene before they take out innocents.

A homicidal scumbag, you can put down like a rabid dog when they start their atrocity. If you call police to intervene, hopefully they'll get there before more lives are lost.

My opinion. Don't lend any credibility into undermining a Constitutionally protected civil liberty into a privilege with a litmus test.
Don't be solely reliant upon law enforcement for your, and others in your immediate surrounding to stop a homicidal scumbag.
End the threat the moment it presents itself, yourself.
A destructive, violent, homicidal scumbag, does more damage than harming/killing others. They generate fear amongst the populace, and paranoia/distrust of those who support the right to keep and bear arms, for politicians and pundits choose their focal point to be the firearm and not the individual with Motive incentive and Intent.

Mental health is not the broad brush stroke the guy in OPs video wants to be the deflection. "The majority in the mental health profession are vehement anti gun, while that may be true..." may? It is true. Between that and wanting to play fast and loose with what qualifies as legitimate danger to ones self and/or others... that's how rights erode into privileges.

That guy just ousted himself as an elitist on board with the Fudds over at the NRA who pushed for redflag laws.

The focus needs to be on addressing Motive, Incentive, Intent.
Unless they want to return to how things were done long before I was born where you could have anyone just about, involuntarily committed to an asylum for diagnosis and long term care/quarantined from society... then be prepared for a flinging fest of who's paying for it, and the bleeding hearts who insist the mentally ill trending homicidal have rights too...

Odd thing is, some states, like Florida, have state law, that can get others involuntarily committed for review. Florida's Baker Act. Had that been used on the Parkland scumbag previous to his attack, he'd never had been able to acquire a firearm. He was protected by the Promise program.

Do I agree with the dude in the video. Not entirely. Do I agree with if you have a problem see a doctor? Of course.
What I don't agree with, deflecting to mental illness as the beast of burden in an attempt to protect the 2nd.

You see it here in this very forum. False Accusations, assumptions, conflation. Why? Those that don't know any better see "someone owns an AR or supports ownership of ARs, they're mentally deranged, psychotic, endorse/support slaying of innocents, a potential threat to society and other hyperbolic statements.
That just simply isn't so.

If you believe the whole 300 million firearms mantra that's been regurgitated since I was in kindergarten, the realistic number is somewhere around 800 million and 1.2 billion.
When compared to homicides which were comitted with a firearm, whether mass shootings or not, the statistics become clear. Less than an entire 1 percent of the population is homicidal. Whether they're involved in criminal enterprise or just want to engage in wanton violence for whatever irrelevant reason.

So it's not firearms that are the problem.
That hyperbolic statement of supporting the 2nd and ownership of any type of firearm = insane/inherent risk to society... just dissolved into just that, a hyperbolic statement with no evidence to support such an emotional claim.

Seems this "community" this guy represents, is on board with the likes of mom's demand action, bloomberg, and the Not Real Activists in further eroding the right to keep and bear arms.

That will happen when you spin the narrative to deflect from attacking the second, with a broad brush stroke claim of it being Mental Illness. Rather than focusing on motive, incentive, intent.

Want mass murders to end? Revoke their incentive.
They won't be so motivated and so intent attacking those that can, and will fight back.

Like bullies. Bullies don't pick on someone their size or who are capable of fighting back. Bullies thrive off of harm at another's expense. They get the attention they lack at home or want in general.
These homicidal scumbags that shoot up schools houses of worship etc?

They get the attention they seek. The media and politicians trip over themselves to publish their names, their agendas, their manifestos, their weapons, their tactics. Publishing a study guide and inspiring others of the fringe minority of society seeking to commit wanton violence upon others for whatever their irrelevant reasons are.

They seek out high concentrations of people, often within confined areas, workplace, schools, houses of worship. Knowing they're unarmed. Their atrocity may commence with little to no resistance. Until law enforcement arrives.
Incentive-Gun free zones.

Their motive? Knowing they can get away with it up until law enforcement arrives.
Their intent? To instill fear, paranoia, cause harm, take innocent life. Sprinkle on the media and politicians giving them attention they seek. Knowing they'll get their 15 minutes of infamy...

Wonder why nothing gets done... keep firearms the focal point... keep pushing fear and paranoia, and distrust amongst the populace, conflation and false equivalency of if gun owner, then inherent risk to society. Only law enforcement and the military should have...

I disagree with the broad brush stroke default to mental illness. It's more than soley that.

I find it to be a lack of will power to defend what is right and just due to complacency and reliance upon the government only as the end all be all to solving problems. Be it legislating, be it only law enforcement, that people are incapable to defend what is rightfully theirs. That it takes a law, a bill, a badge and uniform only.

I'm not of this opinion. People can and should rightfully defend what is theirs from homicidal scumbags whether they're mentally ill or not is irrelevant. The homicidal ought to be the ones cowering in fear calling for gun control. Not everyone else.

[ringwise]

Originally Posted by Mr.Retired

Opinion:



A drunk gets into an accident with his car and his license is revoked.
Mentally ill people need to be banned from access to firearms.

This is a completely apples and oranges comparison.

The drunk is punished because of what he's done.

You want to punish the mentally ill for what they might do.

PS: driving a car is not a constitutional right, while owning a gun is.

[Floorist]

Originally Posted by Brave New World

One in four Americans has a mental illness and in terms of young people it's around one in three.

Also mental illness ranges from depression and anxiety which are common, through to psychosis and schizophrenia, through to bipolar thriugh to personality disorders. Even earing disorders are labelled mental illness as is attention deficit disorder and numerous other things.

Where do you draw the line, and when do you decide that people can have guns again, and just taking guns from everyne labelled mentally ill, is going to mean between 80 million and a 100 million Americans could be denied firearms licences, then you have dementia and other such conditions.

Then you have people banned on top of this for offences involving violence, or offences involving dishonesty or a disregard for public safety, or cautions held by such person, we well as alleged or known involvement in criminal offences, particularly those involving the use of violence or threat of violence (including Domestic Violence), or firearms, or evidence of associations with known criminals. Whilst any evidence of alcohol or drug abuse would also see a person labelled unfit to possess a firearm due to the possible impairment of judgement and loss of self control.

Your medical records and poice records may be used in future to stop Americans owning guns, as is the case in other countries,

Here's the general guidance regarding fitness to be entrutsted with a firearm in England & Wales.

Fitness to be Entrusted with Firearms - Durham Constabulary

Using your posts as an example, It seems everyone in the UK has a mental illness.

[drinkthekoolaid]

Originally Posted by NY_refugee87

Did you know that if you're prescribed Chantix, the quit smoking drug, state troopers come to seize firearms?
True story.
Shrinks used it to treat some form of mental illness. Safeact made it where if you were being treated with some sort of medication used for depression, anxiety, etc, you lost what you possessed.
Co-worker lost his firearms without compensation because he quit smoking and was prescribed chantix. I told him go cold turkey... but nooo....

I know and it's terrible.

Their actions are keeping people from seeking help because they will unnecessarily lose their constitutional right.