2 > 4?, RKBA & mental illness and Minority Report

[maggiesfarmer]

The discussion on RKBA following each mass shooting seems to go like this:
guns aren't the problem, mental illness is the problem -->
we need to stop talking about registering guns and limiting ammo clips and start talking about locking up autistic people before they hurt someone -->
the idea of restricting 2nd amendment rights is intolerable, a better solution is to restrict 4th amendment rights

Can anyone explain to me in logical, rational terms, how locking up someone because they might commit a crime is less egregious than passing laws outlawing automatic handguns?

[treestar]

1. No one knows who is going to snap

But keeping them from guns can be done.

[aikoaiko]

2. Only a few people talk about locking someone up.

Have said that there is a mechanism in every state to involuntarily commit someone who is an imminent danger to him/herself or others through the courts.

There is usually also a mechanism where a professional can have someone held briefly for observation. But the standards for these commitments are usually very high -- (e.g., specific threat within 24 hours)

Others just want to try to keep guns out of the hands are those who are dangerous through background checks, but the issue of danger due to mental illness has difficult due process and privacy issue to tackle.

[Scuba]

3. 2A purists only care about the 2nd. The other Amendments seemingly mean nothing to them.

[bloom]

4. At least 25% of the population

has suffered from depression. It's like we would have to lock them all up.

It would be easier and cheaper to shut down / get rid of the hate mongering websites, movies, and games that get some people all riled up - and wanting to fight the world.

I agree with Michael Moore - that it is not just that the USA has more guns - we live in a culture of glorified violence. What can we do about that?

[hack89]

5. What is wrong with identifying possibly violent people and temporarily taking away their guns?

A place where mental health professionals can go when they have serious concerns? Certainly a lot easier than trying to ban automatic(sic) handguns or any handgun for that matter.

[maggiesfarmer]

6. besides lack of due process that comes with a "thought police" system?

none, I guess. Just not the society I want.

Obviously the big problems are:
- what criteria are applied to determine who is mentally stable vs. unstable?
- who gets to decide which people are unstable and which are stable? Imagine a GOP controlled congress deeming that voting Democrat constitutes mental instability.
- which rights do unstable people deserve to lose? just guns, or does this open the door to taking away their freedom of speech, assembly and religion as well?
- how long should those rights be revoked? who gets to decide the person is "well enough" to share the rights the rest of us have?

[hack89]

7. Permanent revocation would require due process, not temporary

while all valid issues, they are still easier to overcome than the notion that we are going to ban handguns in America.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. .

First, I'm not aware of any demand that autistic people, as a class, or any other class of people be locked away. I know that those who can be treated ought to be treated and if it is through out-patient therapy so much the better. If, however, a person cannot or will not be treated AND is dangerous they should not be allowed to roam the streets. Mental illness or autism is not the determining factor; only the fact their own actions make them a danger.

Logistically it's easier to deal with the miniscule percentage of persons who are pose a threat to themselves or others rather than trying to make criminals of 100 million people.

I would also think its more human to treat a distressed person for their condition rather than take away their gun while leaving them in a world filled with knives, drugs, poisons, cars, ropes, razors. cigarette lighters and tall buildings. Once the underlying condition has been treated it doesn't matter if they have a gun or anything else because they have a life to look forward to.

Fourth, it actually addresses those who are dangerous. A free society doesn't pre-emptively treat all citizens as being guilty of some crime (NSA notwithstanding). It makes no sense for normal, healthy people can be singled out for pre-crime but those who are distressed enough to be dangerous are given a free pass. I understand the impulse to not stigmatize, and that is a good thing -- unless that leads to a reluctance to provide care to those who cannot care for themselves and are dangerous.