It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mental Illness and Gun Rights

page: 1
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 10:53 PM
link   
I decided to put this in the pit as this is a touchy subject and I want members to be able to speak a bit more freely on the subject.

Here are the facts:

-In the United States, 1 in 6 adults are on some type of psychiatric drug; antidepressants were most common, followed by anxiety relievers and antipsychotics.
www.scientificamerican.com...#

Let's do the math:

-As of July 1, 2016, there were 191.81 million adults in the USA, ages ranging from 20-64.
www.statista.com...
(Sorry, but the census bureau site was down as of this posting....at least for me.... on my cell phone, mind you)

191.81 million adults divided by six = 31.968+ million adults on some type of of psychiatric drug.

-Most, if not all, antidepressants carry a huge list of side effects associated with their consumption. The ones we're mostly concerned about I'm sure and relevant to this post, are the thoughts of suicide and violent outbursts which affects 2-4% of prescribed adults.
www.everydayhealth.com...
That leaves us with an upwards of 799.208+ thousand adults who are teetering on the edge at any given time.

Although the research and the findings are ongoing and as such the results are ever changing, we surely can't deny the existence of a problem as it pertains to being mentally stable and the ability to act accordingly when exercising ones 2nd Amendment rights.

We are all fine and dandy with the current questions currently asked to vet individuals for ownership on the ATF Form 4473. However, are those specific questions enough?

Keep in mind I'm a FULL supporter of the Constitution as it is worded, not interpreted. That being said, if we are not going to compromise on anything, what is the solution for overly or under prescribed patients of antidepressants and the like?

Personally, the websites and big pharma love the escape clause that, "Regular follow-up with your doctor is the best way to prevent this side effect."

But what if that's not occurring? Granted, there are many wonderful psychiatrists and therapists out there, however there are the "ambulance chasers" as well who merely raise or lower your dosage after a half hour consultation, or even over the phone.

Should we hold these "pushers" accountable when their "monitored" patients go off the rails?? To be fair, therapy is a two way street, so if the patient decided not to adhere with therapy, should they STILL have the right to own a firearm?

I know, I know.... if you're determined to get a gun, you will most likely be able to obtain a gun.

So what's the answer?

Do we amend Form 4473?

Do we just buy more guns to give us a true or false sense of security?

ANY and ALL suggestions are sincerely appreciated!

REMEMBER I put this in the pit to discuss this more freely...NOT TO MAKE IT A PARTISAN ISSUE!! SO IF ALL YOU GOT IS TRUMP THIS, HILLARY THAT, NRA THIS, LIBERAL THAT...DON'T BOTHER COMMENTING!!

I want to hear from members about a solution to the MENTAL ILLNESS FACTOR, antidepressants specifically, in regards to gun purchases.

Thanks.







edit on E30America/ChicagoMon, 06 Nov 2017 00:52:49 -060011amMondayth12am by EternalShadow because: add/correction




posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 10:59 PM
link   
The problem is.....Where do you draw the line. They can classify over two thirds of Americans with a mental issue, none of which would be psychopathic politicians or cops or agents of the government. They will automatically get to have guns. If you use mental illness, anyone who has ever been prescribed a medicine that can be classified as being used for mental issues will lose their rights, that includes many drugs that people take to control other diseases.



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 10:59 PM
link   
we couldn't discuss this after
..Orlando
..Virginia Tech
..Aurora
..Sandy Hook and countless others...because it wasn't the time,it wasn't appropriate

Many posters here are perfectly happy with any number of casualties so long as they can keep their guns so any musings here are purely academic as there is no will to address this issue.



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 11:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
The problem is.....Where do you draw the line. They can classify over two thirds of Americans with a mental issue, none of which would be psychopathic politicians or cops or agents of the government. They will automatically get to have guns. If you use mental illness, anyone who has ever been prescribed a medicine that can be classified as being used for mental issues will lose their rights, that includes many drugs that people take to control other diseases.


I understand cyour point, however let's rational here...you shouldn't lose your rights over blood pressure medicine. It doesn't have to be that far reaching in its scope.



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 11:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: khnum
we couldn't discuss this after
..Orlando
..Virginia Tech
..Aurora
..Sandy Hook and countless others...because it wasn't the time,it wasn't appropriate

Many posters here are perfectly happy with any number of casualties so long as they can keep their guns so any musings here are purely academic as there is no will to address this issue.


Well with that attitude, where would we even begin???



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 11:07 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalShadow

My comments are on the other thread on this topic there are solutions but I have been on the internet long enough to know talking about restrictions and controls on a US website is a lost cause sorry to be blunt but the fact is it aint ever going to change.



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 11:08 PM
link   
Yes!

My gun is acting very peculiar!

In the morning we have a doctor appointment and I hope they prescribe some meds for it.



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 11:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: EternalShadow

originally posted by: rickymouse
The problem is.....Where do you draw the line. They can classify over two thirds of Americans with a mental issue, none of which would be psychopathic politicians or cops or agents of the government. They will automatically get to have guns. If you use mental illness, anyone who has ever been prescribed a medicine that can be classified as being used for mental issues will lose their rights, that includes many drugs that people take to control other diseases.


I understand cyour point, however let's rational here...you shouldn't lose your rights over blood pressure medicine. It doesn't have to be that far reaching in its scope.


Some water pills and beta blockers have mind altering chemistry, they block acetylcholine which actually effects a person's ability to reason. Like I said, where do you draw the line, a real lot of meds can be considered as treatment for a mental issue.



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 11:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: EternalShadow

originally posted by: rickymouse
The problem is.....Where do you draw the line. They can classify over two thirds of Americans with a mental issue, none of which would be psychopathic politicians or cops or agents of the government. They will automatically get to have guns. If you use mental illness, anyone who has ever been prescribed a medicine that can be classified as being used for mental issues will lose their rights, that includes many drugs that people take to control other diseases.


I understand cyour point, however let's rational here...you shouldn't lose your rights over blood pressure medicine. It doesn't have to be that far reaching in its scope.


Some water pills and beta blockers have mind altering chemistry, they block acetylcholine which actually effects a person's ability to reason. Like I said, where do you draw the line, a real lot of meds can be considered as treatment for a mental issue.


Honestly, I don't know. That's the exact reason for this thread. I'm more speaking to accountability; doctors and patients, even the pharmaceutical companies to be frank.

There are a lot of people out there that should be committed, but instead are out there free to do whatever as long as they're "monitored". That may save the state money, but overall does it save lives in the grand scheme of things, considering the examples we have been privy to here lately?
edit on E30America/ChicagoSun, 05 Nov 2017 23:20:38 -060011pmSundayth11pm by EternalShadow because: add/correction



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 11:16 PM
link   
I'll echo the point I made in the other thread...

Animals kill. Not all animals only kill for food. People are animals.

People that will kill other people will do so with or without guns. So restricting guns from people on the chance that they might do something wrong with them is a no-go for me.

I'm not a gun owner but I do believe strongly that the right to own a gun for hunting and self-defense are inherent rights and not provided by a piece of paper or government.



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 11:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Noncents

There is a difference between hunting a buffalo,bear or boar with a bow and arrow,lance or knife on foot or horseback and blowing away everything that moves hiding behind a gun.Theres killing and then theres murder and bloodlust.



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 11:24 PM
link   
a reply to: khnum
Yes there is. I apologize if you believe I was saying otherwise. That difference has zero impact on my stance that people should be allowed to own guns for both hunting and self-defense. One gun may be great for hunting and horrible for self-defense, especially against militarized enemies. But a different gun may be excellent for self-defense and not so great for hunting.
edit on 5-11-2017 by Noncents because: Expanded



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 11:25 PM
link   
Gun rights. Until you get rid of all the guns at once, you better not get rid of any of the guns.
The modern human. Built by industry. People do whatever their Master's say, and go as far as their Master's go.
Society was born of violence, and of violence it shall continue. With the weaponized violence that this society is capable of maybe everyone should have a gun. Laws do not stop bad people from doing bad things.




-In the United States, 1 in 6 adults are on some type of psychiatric drug; antidepressants were most common, followed by anxiety relievers and antipsychotics.


Hello big pharma. Mandatory Vaccinations. Excellent. Look at all the problems we can fix now. The real reason for this in my opinion.
But that is another thread.



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 11:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: khnum
we couldn't discuss this after
..Orlando
..Virginia Tech
..Aurora
..Sandy Hook and countless others...because it wasn't the time,it wasn't appropriate

Many posters here are perfectly happy with any number of casualties so long as they can keep their guns so any musings here are purely academic as there is no will to address this issue.


I didn't know you were here for 2007 ? V-Tech is old school.

I'm pretty sure the kibosh on those topics was more to do with people dragging family members into things, and the claims that go around these things..

Would you give a man full of lsd a loaded gun?
The psychoactive drugs given to people suffering mental issues, do exactly the same things when they play with serotonin, dopamine, etc, just over a longer period of time. The illicit drugs have an effect that influxes the brain with these neurotransmitters. The RX drugs, just take a few weeks.. but anyone who has had either, you know you're not supposed to feel a certain way, especially without the synergistic effects of the other effects, that create 'bliss' as opposed to 'terror'...



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 11:30 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalShadow

First off I agree with the Micheal Moore gun documentary, or at least what I got from it was...

That the media has us s seed over nothing and shooting at shadows..

If you had a burglar there is about a 99% chance they are scareder if you than you are of them..

They know you might shoot them and they wanted a proverbial paycheck, not a murder charge.

Or more often it’s the idiot kid next door after your extra pack of smokes or half your empty bottle of crown royal..

But the media constantly shows us these one in a million horror stories so we think every stranger is a rape serial killer!!

Same with cops.. cops are safer than most people would be in a bad situation...

A) they are trained and armed .

B) countless badguys would kill a citizen before they ever killed a cop..


The only way to adress guns realistically , is to build a registry and make sure every gun can be “accounted for.”then use tech to make sure only the owner can fire the gun.


I also think people should have to qualify every few years..



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 11:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: EternalShadow

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: EternalShadow

originally posted by: rickymouse
The problem is.....Where do you draw the line. They can classify over two thirds of Americans with a mental issue, none of which would be psychopathic politicians or cops or agents of the government. They will automatically get to have guns. If you use mental illness, anyone who has ever been prescribed a medicine that can be classified as being used for mental issues will lose their rights, that includes many drugs that people take to control other diseases.


I understand cyour point, however let's rational here...you shouldn't lose your rights over blood pressure medicine. It doesn't have to be that far reaching in its scope.


Some water pills and beta blockers have mind altering chemistry, they block acetylcholine which actually effects a person's ability to reason. Like I said, where do you draw the line, a real lot of meds can be considered as treatment for a mental issue.


Honestly, I don't know. That's the exact reason for this thread. I'm more speaking to accountability; doctors and patients, even the pharmaceutical companies to be frank.

There are a lot of people out there that should be committed, but instead are out there free to do whatever as long as they're "monitored". That may save the state money, but overall does it save lives in the grand scheme of things, considering the examples we have been privy to here lately?


There are viruses out there that can cause your blood to agglutinate and that can temporarily distort your thinking. That would be temporary though, but it might be able to be used against a person to own a gun.

People do go bonkers once in a while with stress, sometimes it is only a day or two and almost everyone has a day like that if not more within a decade. A very mild nervous breakdown, that could almost be considered normal for everyone.....But

I do agree we do need to figure a way to address this issue, people who kind of go off for a while should have their guns taken away by a relative for a while. Police should assist if possible, checking out if the close relative actually is not the one who is insane and trying to punish his kin before the kin does it to him. I can see that happening, actually some people with psychological issues think their delusions are real and think there is something wrong with others.

There is a huge can of worms here, I can't figure out how they can fix it. Taking away guns from the honest citizens who are not a problem and abide the laws is not right though.



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 11:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
Yes!

My gun is acting very peculiar!

In the morning we have a doctor appointment and I hope they prescribe some meds for it.


Is it acting all shooty at other people, peculiar? or just looking at you with it's one cold dead eye, peculiar?

If it's all shooty and stuff, I'd refrain from getting meds. 100% of the problems guns have is between the grip and the users brain. Some people even get legal guns, use them legally hundreds of times, secure them lawfully, and treat them as a tool.. but then need a hammer to knock some bullets into a random person because the kettle wouldn't boil before 9am and those pills the doc prescribed me are making me ANGRY...



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 11:40 PM
link   
a reply to: badw0lf




Is it acting all shooty at other people, peculiar? or just looking at you with it's one cold dead eye, peculiar?


Man it's always going off half cocked,shooting off at the mouth and giving me the evil eye.

I'm sceeeeerd.

Might have to put it in a straight jacket soon.



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 11:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: badw0lf




Is it acting all shooty at other people, peculiar? or just looking at you with it's one cold dead eye, peculiar?


Man it's always going off half cocked,shooting off at the mouth and giving me the evil eye.

I'm sceeeeerd.

Might have to put it in a straight jacket soon.


I would suggest lending it to someone you trust. They can put it in a gun safe, and when you are feeling better and the hallucinations have stopped, they can assess you and return it if safe.




posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 12:03 AM
link   
I have never personally heard anyone say that they are in favor of the mentally ill owning firearms.

The problem lies with HIPAA laws and with who is qualified to decide that a mental illness disqualifies a person to own a firearm.

To be workable, you'd have to have the healthcare system and NICS talking to each other. This opens up all sorts of privacy issues, and would be tied up in the courts for years.

On the other hand, any sort of database that even hints at a gun registry is going to raise an outcry from all the gun owners.

In my state, an involuntary commitment for mental health treatment is the disqualifying factor. In other words, a judge has to sign an order committing the person. That leaves a paper trail. The problem would be letting the background check see that order of the court.

What happens if the person is treated and no longer is deemed mentally ill? Do they have their gun rights restored?



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join