General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat mental illness diagnoses should result in loss of right to posses a firearm?
I see a lot of talk about adding this to the background check process, but few specifics.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Most mentally ill people aren't violent, and most violent people aren't mentally ill.
Better idea: background check fail, and loooooooong prohibition on gun ownership for anyone who's been busted for any act of violence, even if it's just getting in a bar brawl. Violence is a much stronger predictor of future violence.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,868 posts)I agree that mental illness isn't an indicator of violent tendencies.
salib
(2,116 posts)Is that most of these mass killers were "mentally ill".
What gives?
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)...but that doesn't mean they had a diagnosable mental disorder at the time they committed those crimes.
Some reading on this subject:
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/mass-shootings-are-not-about-mental-illness/
“If we were able to magically cure schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depression, that would be wonderful, but overall violence would go down by only about four percent,” Dr. Jeffrey Swanson, a professor of psychiatry at Duke, told ProPublica last year. He notes a 2001 study of mass shooters that found three out of four had no psychiatric history.
Efforts aimed at keeping the mentally ill from guns have done little to lower the overall crime rate. In 2001, Connecticut added patients who had been involuntarily committed to mental institutions to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The result? Violent crime among those persons dropped by over 50 percent, but since they constitute such a small percentage of the criminal population only 14 violent crimes were prevented—not 14 mass shootings, just 14 violent crimes. That’s good as far as it goes, but Swanson notes: “It's like if you had a vaccine that was going to work against a particular public health epidemic, but only seven percent of the people got the vaccine. It might work great for them, but it's not going to affect the epidemic.”
A better approach, says Swanson, is taking guns out of the hands of those who have demonstrable violent behaviors instead of the very high bar of having been committed. “Some of that can be voluntary: I have colleagues who are psychiatrists. When they see patients with serious depression, they counsel them about the danger of having a gun in the house. They have a conversation with family members,” Swanson says. “You can do a lot without invoking law, by talking to people about harm reduction and locking up guns. Getting family members to voluntarily store guns somewhere else.”
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)It's a lay post ipso facto diagnosis, meant to try to "understand what happened"
bemildred
(90,061 posts)It's not the crazy ones you have to worry about, its the sociopaths and the anger management problems.
w0nderer
(1,937 posts)use a gun, knife or bottle in a bar fight to defend self or a loved one
have i?
no, i've gone 'hey have a beer on me' to an aggressor, i've gone 'let's chill' and ended up friends with an aggressor, i've gone 'i don't wanna go to jail and you don't wanna go to hospital'...he did and i did(3 months)...but i kept weapons out of it
most of the time a little 'cool' and 'chill' and 'less machismo' works a long way
that being said, i ccw(gun), ccc(teargas 'chemical'), i cck(knife), i ccb(baton), i tima(trained in martial arts)
i live in areas where most white folk don't go, and a lotta black folk won't either
where cops show up only in 3-5 car groups
most ccw's seem to be 'scared in good neighbourhoods'
cwydro
(51,308 posts)
DeadLetterOffice
(1,352 posts)Thank you.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)
LostOne4Ever
(9,288 posts)
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Honest question...I'm curious if that specific variety of gun violence is disproportionately associated with mental illness. Mass shootings are a very small minority of gun homicides (and of gun crimes in general). I wouldn't expect mental illness to be statistically significant in overall gun crime numbers. In crimes like the Roseburg shooting, it might be another story. Worth some research, which I'll undertake when I have more time (unless someone already knows the answer and/or where to look at the data).
In any case, I strongly agree: violence is a much more reliable predictor. Along with retaining the lifetime ban on gun ownership by felons, I'd have no objection to a nice long temporary ban for conviction for violent misdemeanors, any form of domestic violence, etc.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)While mass shooters often have a mental illness, the vast majority of people diagnosed with the same illness never commit any acts of violence.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I'd still be curious to see if there is any correlation, though. That is, if persons with diagnosed mental illnesses are over-represented in perpetrating mass shootings. I'm guessing that the correlation probably exists, but is not a strong one (and, as your response indicates, without strong causal influence).
As has been discussed, previous demonstrations of an inclination towards lesser levels of violence would seem to be a far better indicator of a propensity to escalate to murder.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)then that person shouldn't have access to guns.
LiberalArkie
(15,715 posts)Although I do not think paranoid people should be able to acquire a firearm.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)So on top of anyone convicted of violent crimes, anyone who's had a DUI or other drug/alcohol-abuse related conviction, or cooked meth, or did things like stealing to feed a drug habit, should be prohibited from buying or possessing weapons.
DustyJoe
(849 posts)The current nics background check denies sales to anyone ever committed for mental problems or found mentally defective by a court.
gwheezie
(3,580 posts)And you know that.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)The weapons were purchased at a dealer and background check performed. Some nice straw there though.
DustyJoe
(849 posts)But the question of the OP was
So, my response was just to point out the 2 mental health concerns already covered by the current NICS background check.
I believe most responsible gun owners, myself included would have no problem requiring private sales to be processed the same as online sales. The firearm delivered to a federally licensed dealer who submits the NICS check to complete the sale. Most dealers charge a nominal (around here $25) fee for the service. The gun show hoopla is ridiculous since there are FFL dealers galore and getting the NICS done at a gun show is easy. I see many private sales advertised in my area that state a requirement to meet at a dealer for the NICS check for the sale, so a degree of responsibility in a private sale is being done voluntarily by some owners.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)by a responsible court or agents of such a court, that a person is not competent or suited due to reasons of mental health, capacity or disability, to safely possess firearms.
Because even persons with serious mental disorders do not commit gun violence at levels significantly different than the general population it is really -not- a matter of the diagnosis.
It -is- a matter of the person whose competency is under consideration
petronius
(26,602 posts)
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,868 posts)Thanks.
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)...self identify as a conservative/republican and join the NRA.
OffWithTheirHeads
(10,337 posts)This from someone who owns and enjoys my guns. Not only do I think there should be background checks, I think it should be mandatory that you attend a class on the consequences of using that gun on anything other than paper.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)Wow.
ileus
(15,396 posts)always tying to intimidate small cars, last thing they need is a firearm also.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)So to them, that one is out.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Did you ask, or not?
Anyone who asks "how many is too many" doesn't get one.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)It's no accident that actual legislation doesn't use vague terms like that.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The OP question is about mental conditions.
I believe a psychologist would be capable of recognizing an obsessive personality disorder in relation to guns - i.e. "wanting lots of them".
-----
DSM-5 Diagnostic Criteria for Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (300.3)
A. Presence of obsessions, compulsions, or both:
Obsessions are defined by (1) and (2):
1. Recurrent and persistent thoughts, urges, or impulses that are experienced, at some time during the disturbance, as intrusive and unwanted, and that in most individuals cause marked anxiety or distress.
2.The individual attempts to ignore or suppress such thoughts, urges, or images, or to neutralize them with some other thought or action (i.e., by performing a compulsion).
Compulsions are defined by (1) and (2):
1. Repetitive behaviors (e.g., hand washing, ordering, checking) or mental acts (e.g., praying, counting, repeating words silently) that the individual feels driven to perform in response to an obsession or according to rules that must be applied rigidly.
2.The behaviors or mental acts are aimed at preventing or reducing anxiety or distress, or preventing some dreaded event or situation; however, these behaviors or mental acts are not connected in a realistic way with what they are designed to neutralize or prevent, or are clearly excessive.
Note: Young children may not be able to articulate the aims of these behaviors or mental acts.
B. The obsessions or compulsions are time-consuming (e.g., take more than 1 hour per day) or cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.
C. The obsessive-compulsive symptoms are not attributable to the physiological effects of a substance (e.g., a drug of abuse, a medication) or another medical condition.
D. The disturbance is not better explained by the symptoms of another mental disorder (e.g., excessive worries, as in generalized anxiety disorder; preoccupation with appearance, as in body dysmorphic disorder; difficulty discarding or parting with possessions, as in hoarding disorder; hair pulling, as in trichotillomania [hair-pulling disorder]; skin picking, as in excoriation [skin-picking] disorder; stereotypies, as in stereotypic movement disorder; ritualized eating behavior, as in eating disorders; preoccupation with substances or gambling, as in substance-related and addictive disorders; preoccupation with having an illness, as in illness anxiety disorder; sexual urges or fantasies, as in paraphilic disorders; impulses, as in disruptive, impulse-control, and conduct disorders; guilty ruminations, as in major depressive disorder; thought insertion or delusional preoccupations, as in schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorders; or repetitive patterns of behavior, as in autism spectrum disorder).
--------
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)The entire topic is predicated on changing the rules on what diagnoses constitute a disqualifying condition in a NICS background check. That would require legislation (or possibly executive order).
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
jen63
(813 posts)in another thread about the DSM. I haven't gotten an answer back. Specifically where to draw the line, since the edits to manual add and subtract illnesses with each addition. Most mental illnesses do not manifest in violence. Alcoholics/drug addicts? Used to be there, not any more. Most are arrested at some point. Include, or not? Who makes the decision? What happens when new illnesses are added? Confiscate their weapons just because they were added to a book? No answers.
gwheezie
(3,580 posts)I do not want drs or social workers to determine thus. A court where your rights are protected and represented, where the state pays for your attorney and expert witness and you have a right to appeal is the only way to do this.
I think it's perfectly acceptable for a magistrate to issue an emergency order to remove weapons if there is an immediate danger. But you must have a hearing.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect that someone who is floridly psychotic with a history of violence be restricted from gun possession. The key is history of violence, repeated threats if violence, acts of violence is more accurate than hx of mental illness. I think if you've made repeated suicide attempts you can be restricted. I think to exclude voluntary patients puts an unfair burden on society since there are people with histories of violence who are never committed that can be homicidal. A mental health evaluated should be able to notify the court even if the patient is voluntary.
People who are chronically ill wax and wane in their symptoms based on the nature of the disease or non compliance. I think it's reasonable for the court to order involuntary outpatient treatment for anyone who is high risk in order to maintain their gun rights.
I do not believe most people meet any criteria if insanity. I've seen very little evidence that the mentally ill are more capable of violence than anyone else. The majority of murders are not done by the mentally ill. In my 40 years of experience I have met people who should absolutely be restricted from possessing firearms. I have cared for 1000's of people with brain disease who aren't going to harm anyone. I can't positively identify one diagnosis as being an indicator of risk but you can use hx if violence as an indicator.
I learned this in my career. I have a patient who had fixed delusions about his family. When on medication he was fine. I remember telling his sister due to his prior non compliance and threats against family members that she was not obligated to let him live on the family compound. The court ordered his weapons be removed. He was released and a month later killed 8 people, including his sweet loving sister, her husband and their small children. He was able to buy weapons privately from a neighbor. There is no background check for private gun sales. He also killed 2 neighbors who went out to the farm when they heard the gunshots. I will never forget his sister.
So I have a real life reason for supporting restrictions of gun possession but I do not want a national data base of everyone with a mental illness that is scapegoating. Part of the database should be anyone adjudicated or pending court to not possess firearms. If we want to start making lists, I'd rather make a list of gun owners. Not everyone with a mental illness.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)a right to appeal.
No mental illness has a unique association of social gun violence higher than risks of social gun violence on persons who do not have that illness. So in as far as we know psychology, it's not a one-size fits all problem that can have a one size fits all solution.
It's something that must be dealt with on an individual basis.
And should the mental disorder involved resolve, the right to possess guns should, at least theoretically, be available through a petition to appeal the original order for reversal
gwheezie
(3,580 posts)I think personally too many people have too many guns, society would be better off without all these weapons but
I have supported patients on appeal to restore the gun rights. The mentally ill should not be singled out as the cause of gun violence. I had one young man who was mildly impaired, lived at home with his mom on a farm surrounded by encroaching suburbia. A neighbor called because he was holding his rifle, sobbing and shooting a cat. He got a mention order, psych eval and was committed. The court ordered his guns removed. It was a travesty and our psychiatrist released the patient and we helped him with the appeal to restore his gun rights.
He was killing his pet cat who he loved because the cat was sick and suffering. He was so upset when the police came and then went to court that due to his developmental disability he was not able to articulate his thoughts clearly. He grew up on s farm where a well placed bullet is a humane form of euthanasia for a sick animal. The city folk don't get this. He hunted, fished and took care of his momma and the farm. He got his rifles back on appeal. We fought for him.
We have too many handguns, I am clearly on the side of more restrictions but I'm not an idiot. The gun laws were not written for this guy.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)There are too many guns, and it's late to try to stem that.
But it's not too late to stop attempts to institutionalize the scapegoating and it's dangers to civil liberty and equal protection. It's not to late to push back on attempts to resolve the problem by pushing it into places it doesn't belong, into solutions that don't fit and that hurt people.
Many people have no idea how uncertain and imprecise 'the system' that manages public mental health can be. They have no idea the amount of personal damage that can be done by bored bureaucratic appointees 'acting with an abundance of caution' and 'erring on the side of caution'.
They have no idea how a therapist's dx is a floating signifier of a working hypothesis that for practical purposes really don't get much more than minutes of concern because the treatment offered by that therapist is going to be much the same over a broad range of diagnoses.
IMO, narratives built on such histories shouldn't be treated as gold standards to strip people of any thing. Such narratives should be open to critical examination and possible challenge prior to their use beyond therapy, whether it's commitment or denial of rights to possess weapons.
gwheezie
(3,580 posts)I've seen people committed because they have a psych dx and they peed in an ally. Wtf, it was a homeless person who had to oee, how can that be twisted into exposing yourself. Or another woman who was committed for setting a fire. She was homeless she was trying to stay warm. And self defense is always an issue with the mentally ill. If you have a psych dx and someone abuses you and you hit them, quess whos going to the hospital. Even if the person who assaults you is a cop or your caretaker.
I refer all my patients to nami. I get them library cards and show them how to find advocacy groups and I tell them how to get legal help. If you have a chronic mental illness and you are unable to advocate for yourself or have a loved one who has your back, you are at the mercy of people who may not give a shit. It's appalling
Rex
(65,616 posts)Have you ever shot someone? What do you plan on doing with this firearm? Stuff like that might help.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)I would say anyone who is depressed should be precluded from possession of a firearm...
I don't really believe that.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)diagnosable mental illness isn't in and of itself a very good indicator that someone is going to go off and shoot a bunch of people.
Good background checks. All guns be registered. All gun owners carry insurance. If a gun is stolen, you must report it, and if it's used in the commission of a crime within 2 years, you have some sort of liability. If one of your kids or some kid just visiting your house finds one of your guns and shoots it, you lose all right to own guns forever.
No private sales.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)And as for the liability for criminal use of a stolen firearm, that is unconstitutional on its face. You cannot be held liable for the acts of another person, especially when you were the victim (of theft).
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)There is no gun safe anywhere that can withstand a thief with time. Any safe rated for household use can be either sawed open or cut open with a cutting torch. And this does happen.
gwheezie
(3,580 posts)Remember the guy who left his gun in the bathroom, if someone stole it and used it in a crime, what then.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)But if the gun was used in a crime later on, the man still can't be charged for that crime. Our legal system doesn't/won't allow it.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)SheilaT
(23,156 posts)"Oh, some nasty thief stole my gun! I'm not responsible!" just doesn't cut it. You want to own a gun? You behave responsibly about it.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)You'll never be able to implement a law that punishes a person for another person's acts to which they were not a party. It's no different than if a thief steals your car from the parking lot, police are notified and spot the car and then during the pursuit the thief crashes into another car and kills an occupant of the other car - the person whose car was stolen has absolutely no legal liability in that situation.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)stolen, you have a responsibility. I'd like to make that responsibility forever, but I'd go for a two year time limit, after which you're off the hook. It's a bit analogous to lending someone your car, they get in an accident, your car insurance pays. Guns have vastly more destructive potential than cars.
And the insurance wouldn't have to be all that much, a couple of dollars a year per gun. If there are 300 million legal guns out there, the number that is frequently thrown out, then at 3 bucks a gun per year, that's almost a billion dollars. Make the insurance federally run so the costs are a lot less than if private insurance companies were involved.
Maybe, just maybe, reporting the theft lets you off the hook. But unreported stolen gun, and it's used in a crime? You're liable. Keep track of your guns.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)So no, it's not analogous at all to require responsibility after a theft, and our legal system would never go for that.
It's a nicer new form of victim blaming, however, to demand that a theft victim be responsible for the theft instead of the thief- almost like saying they were "asking for it". Where have we seen that before?
You do realize that the only real provider of firearms insurnace is the NRA right? I am sure they would love a $1,000,000,000 jump in revenue forced by the government- and unless you subsidize gun insurnace on a federal level there is no way the government can do that cheaper. And if you plan to subsidize it it tax money, what exactly is the point?
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)And guns are inherently far more dangerous than cars, and it's about time everyone understood that.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)And you won't ever get a mandatory instance scheme to fly.
It would be considered the equivalent of a poll tax and the courts would throw it right out. Just like you can't require an ID to vote- to exercise that right- if the ID costs money. You likewise can't require purchase of anything else to exercise a right. And like it or not the Supreme Court had established clearly that owning a firearm is an individual right.
On top of that there is case law that says that you can't require a person who can't legally own a gun to register it because that would violate their Fifth Amendment rights against self incrimination- so criminals couldn't actually be required to buy insurance as that would be self inclination. See Haynes vs US.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)Otherwise, every single person who says we can't do anything about the second amendment as it stands is also saying, it's just fine that thousands of people are killed, or kill themselves, with guns every single year.
And actually, a quick google check reveals that somewhat fewer people die in car accidents every year in this country than from guns. So not sure how you say that cars are far more dangerous.
People do have to license cars. And are required to carry insurance in most states. Too bad there's not the same attitude towards guns.
beevul
(12,194 posts)5th amendment this time.
Not to own them they don't. That's required only for public use. Along with a license to drive (in public) car licensing is loosely equivalent to license to carry, but you don't want concealed carry, do you?
Again, only for public use, not for simple ownership. The only way insurance is required for simple ownership, is if theres a loan out on the vehicle, and even then, often not. And when it is, its part of getting the loan, not because of any law.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)
quaker bill
(8,224 posts)People should have to prove that they are not a threat to self or others to possess or carry.
Any criminal violent act in their past would disqualify virtually every time.
They should then have to carry insurance in the same manner that one must insure a car for liability, to cover the intentional or accidental discharge that causes death or injury.
Since most guns are not used in a manner that causes death or injury, the premiums should be affordable, after all, cars result in more death and injury each year. Failure to carry insurance would result in suspension of the license and liability assessed directly against the owner's assets. A valid license at the time of purchase would be required to purchase fire arms and ammunition.
There could be multi-gun discounts, and "safe owner" discounts, just like with vehicle insurance. Proof of what constitutes a "safe owner" would be up to the insurer offering the discount. Perhaps the definition would include regular certified gun safety training, a continued record of no violence since becoming insured, and perhaps proof of a secure storage location, a gun safe or something similar to prevent or deter theft or misuse.
The best part is that second amendment advocates then could pick up the tab for most of the resulting mayhem.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Insurance now for gun owner is really cheap, with it forced ohh would get cheaper. And it's really only available through NRA affiliated insurance providers and the NRA makes lots of money from it.
Make it mandatory for millions of gun owners and the NRA is the only game in town to buy it? You just made the NRA much more powerful- in profits from the insurance and a surge in new members- both those gun owners who never cared about gun laws until you forced them to spend money and all the millions who will going just to get the discounted insurance rates.
Then, you have the fact that the vast majority of gun crimes are committed by- guess who- criminals. Guess who won't give a damn about your silly little insurnace law? Criminals.
So the vast majority of shootings still won't have any insurnace attached.
So- you won't actually have any insurance at play in most shootings, and you will drive millions more people to join the NRA and make them even bigger and wealthier selling their insurance.
Brilliant!
quaker bill
(8,224 posts)so why have them? Outlawing robbery and rape have not stopped criminals from doing it, so why do we have these laws?
You aren't thinking it through.
I think second amendment advocates should shoulder the full financial responsibility for all the mayhem that is the unintended consequence of their cherished right to "keep and bear".
Make the market big enough and plenty of competitors will jump in. There are 330 million guns out there, and I bet nearly all of them are uninsured.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Laws against rape and murder exist because those acts, in and of themselves, are bad and harm others.
Gun ownership is not in and of itself bad- no matter how you look at the statistics the vast, vast, vast majority of guns are never used to harm anyone.
The stated goal of the insurance schemes is to make gun owners beat the cost of misuse of guns. However, the very people most likely to misuse guns are the very ones who are not very likely to comply with any half baked mandatory insurance law- so the plan won't work. And all you get at most is an extra charge to add on to someone who uses a gun illegally or negligently- and as those things are already illegal you don't need another law in top of what exists.
Of course, what the insurance propents won't admit, but really want, is the insurance schemes to be burdensome and expensive so as to burden law abiding gun owners and discourage gun ownership. However, since SCOTUS had ruled gun ownership is an individual right any such scheme would likely fail a challenge because you can't require someone to pay money to exercise a basic right- see the court ruling on poll taxes and how even paying for an ID can be too much expense to exercise a right.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)You're arguing from the specific to the general. Which is a fallacy...
In any case, I don't buy your "collective guilt" argument as a rationale for imposing mandatory insurance on gun owners. If that were a valid rationale, then why not advocate penis licenses for all men...as a way of assuming "full responsibility for all the mayhem" caused by rape? Collective guilt is an ethically unsound notion.
Oh, and you might be surprised at how many of the c. 80 million gun owners already have coverage. Most homeowners policies and some renter's insurance policies have personal liability coverage that would cover them for any accidental harm from their firearms (no insurer on earth covers deliberate harm).
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)of a threat of violent behavior than anything else- and if you add substance abuse to bipolar or schizophrenia you have a person more than twice as likely to act violently than the average person.
It needs to be done on an individual basis, in a legal manner where the person is adjudicated properly and has the right to representation and appeal.
melm00se
(4,992 posts)the 1st question should be:
How reliable are psychiatric diagnosis?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2990547/
LWolf
(46,179 posts)I want stricter gun control, to make it much, much harder for people to get guns.
AND I want a system in place to address the mental health of the nation, which would help reduce the number of disturbed people wanting to commit mass murder, as well as supporting a healthier population for day-to-day function.
I don't think you could use mental health as a condition.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts) KamaAina
(78,249 posts)
TexasBushwhacker
(20,186 posts)the courts where a judge would be the one to decide if they should have their 2nd amendment rights taken away.
For example, my dad (died in 2007) was bipolar. He was often non-compliant about taking his meds. He was also an alcoholic. During one particularly bad manic episode he had a psychotic break and became extremely paranoid. I went into his house to find him sitting in his easy chair with 2 pistols, a deer rifle, a shotgun and an axe "for protection".
I left an went to the county mental hospital and had him picked up for a 72 hour observation. They could see the problem and told him he could stay voluntarily and get back on his meds or they would take him before a judge and have him committed. He stayed voluntarily for 3 weeks. My brothers removed all the weapons. They gave the deer rifle and shotgun my uncle (dad's brother in law) because he was a hunter.
When dad got out, he immediately wanted his weapons. We told him they were in a safe place. He called his sister and asked if she had them. She admitted they did and gave them back to him. He got picked up by the cops a couple of weeks later, standing in the middle of the street, with his rifle "protecting the neighborhood".
I don't think he was ever charged with anything. The cops just realized he was a crazy old man. Considering he liked to go off his meds and drink too much, he had no business owning weapons , but LEGALLY he could.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)to guns.
I think anyone with a diagnosis involving psychosis or psychotic breaks should fall in this category, even if they haven't had a history of violence.
TexasBushwhacker
(20,186 posts)Personally, I think anyone with bipolar disorder or depression shouldn't have weapons, especially since some antidepressants can actually CAUSE suicidal thoughts and behavior. Of course, we want to reduce suicides, but sometimes suicidal people decide to kill others as well. I've had 2 depressed friends who killed themselves with firearms. Nothing is as quick and effective as a gun.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Just curious. Life and death decision making powers could be in such a person's hands.
TexasBushwhacker
(20,186 posts)at that level, even when their symptoms are controlled with medication. However, knowing their personality traits, I have no doubt there are plenty of bipolar MDs and other professionals. A lot of MDs have drug and alcohol problems too. My dad was a CPA.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)One there is a lot of misunderstanding about what it means to have an illness that can include psychosis and how that may or may not prevent a person from routinely and over long periods function at high levels.
And another is the way that society places strict limits upon opportunity for people with mental illnesses. These limits often aren't even close to fair, but lean heavily on fear and prejudice.
If you aren't aware of Mark Vonnegut, MD, I'd like to introduce him, the son of Kurt Vonnegut and a long-time pediatrician and author of several autobiographical books in which his schizophrenia plays an important part.
His book "Just Like Someone Without Mental Illness Only More So" is a pretty informative and enjoyable read.
TexasBushwhacker
(20,186 posts)I know he slipped into schizophrenia after doing a lot of drugs. Brian Wilson was also diagnosed as schizophrenic, but now they say he's bipolar with schizo affective disorder. When it comes to symptoms like psychosis and hallucinations, there's definitely some overlap. I'm glad Mark was able to overcome his illness so well. There are newer antipsychotics like Clozaril that are life changing for some patients, but they can have some heavy duty side effects. Clozaril can even cause a fatal drop in white blood cells and has to be closely monitored.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)which is doubtful.
Every year doctors have to get relicensed, and the issue of mental illnesses is something that is addressed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/08/health/doctors-toughest-diagnosis-own-mental-health.html?pagewanted=all
In 1999 the board changed its licensing form. The new form asked only whether the doctor had, since the last renewal, suffered from a mental disorder that impaired the ability to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety -- the same question asked about physical illnesses.
While many states now use a similar ''impairment'' criterion, Dr. Miles said, other states still ask about diagnoses. In one case, he said, a young doctor was investigated because he admitted on a licensing form to having been hospitalized 10 years earlier, before he had attended medical school.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)The great news for us is that it actually happened.
Mark Vonnegut, son of Kurt Vonnegut was stricken with schizophrenia as a teen-ager and succeeded at getting into medical school, graduating, being licensed and being a practicing pediatrician.
He's a successful author, though perhaps not in the caliber of his father. His stories of his own life are pretty revealing about our own prejudices against people with serious mental illness.
Clearly people vary in the severity of mental afflictions and in their capacity to cope. Vonnegut's life can't be extended to every person with psychotic symptoms. Nonetheless his story is eye-opening, especially to people who are by default greatly frightened to learn someone near to them has a mental disorder
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)In any case, part of the relicensing process, which differs by state, requires doctors to report on mental and physical illnesses. The boards may then request more information from the treating physicians. And depending on that, they may suspend a doctor's license.
If a person truthfully admitted to a disease like schizophrenia, they would certainly want to collect more information before deciding whether to relicense.
That's how it works.
As to Vonnegut:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Vonnegut
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)As I'm not a doctor, my answer would be no more than a guess predicated on my biases.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)no matter if the person is mentally ill or not. No matter if they once were a good guy with a gun or a criminal?
No matter if the shooting was an accident or premeditated. No matter if a little kid shot himself or a neighbor.
What is the one constant in all these?
LiberalArkie
(15,715 posts)"The Voices"
TexasBushwhacker
(20,186 posts)meaculpa2011
(918 posts)Hatred, rage, anger and hostility... ARE NOT MENTAL ILLNESSES!
Vinca
(50,270 posts)Mental illness as a cause of all mass killings is a story put forth by the NRA and Republicans to avoid talking about the 300 million guns available to people with hatred, rage, anger and hostility.
meaculpa2011
(918 posts)backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Everyone is capable of committing terrible crimes if pushed hard enough, say pumped full of hatred and rage...
nolabels
(13,133 posts)People who see firearms as way to security for their personal lives and rights are by most any definition i can see or find just insane.
These are my beliefs and only my beliefs. I don't and won't prove them to anybody because the are my own personally.
What possession do you have that is worth your life in trade?
madville
(7,410 posts)And last I saw the vast majority of suicides are linked to some kind mental disorder. Most firearms deaths in this country are linked to mental illness.
Now would limiting firearms access to the mentally ill reduce or prevent suicides? I can't answer that, surely some would seek out an alternate method. It would probably save a few suicides but is that worth infringing the rights of all the mentally ill people who wouldn't commit suicide with a firearm?
meaculpa2011
(918 posts)madville
(7,410 posts)And most suicides can be linked to some form of mental illness. Firearms deaths and mental illness are closely related in the U.S., usually around 20,000 instances a year.
But tens of millions of people with some form of mental illness don't commit suicide so is restricting their rights worth saving some of the thousands that do? I would say no.