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.

 

Gun ban for the mentally ill

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2007 @ 02:32 PM
link   
news.yahoo.com...



Spurred by the deadliest shooting rampage in modern U.S. history, the Democratic-led House of Representatives is expected to approve a bill to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, lawmakers said on Tuesday.


The legislation -- which the House is to take up on Wednesday -- was drafted in consultation with the 4-million-member National Rifle Association, the country's biggest gun rights group, after a deranged gunman killed 32 others and himself in April at Virginia Tech University.


at least we can all agree that it's important to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill


[edit: abbreviated long link]

[edit on 14-6-2007 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Well, i agree, but it seems ban is not effective. I still see them waging wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Does that mean anyone who's ever taken an anti-depressant could not own a gun? I wonder what their definition of mentally ill encompasses.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Damn....and they had access to guns until now!!!!!

Craziest thing I ever heard of that they had access to guns at ALL



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kruel
I wonder what their definition of mentally ill encompasses.


I can see it now .. the list of who is 'mentally ill' could very well get political (anyone who votes Green is mentally ill and shouldn't have a gun !!
- only kidding). Also - mentally ill people shouldn't have handguns - okay, but what about people on medications for those illness'? Also - 1/5 of Americans will have some form of mental disorder at some point in their lives. (true!)

This is good to discuss. But the answers could get ugly!!



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 11:26 AM
link   
The mentally ill can aways be used as a good cannon foter in a war. In other words we can put them on the front line.
The end aways justifys the means of their policy, they want to control everyone. The easiest way to do that is disarm the people nuts or not. Good find



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 11:36 AM
link   
This is a great idea!
. It's just a step closer for the govt. in banning guns in general. These crazies don't necessarily have to obtain their weapons legally. Take Eric Harris & Dylan Klebold for instance. Most violent crimes are committed with guns acquired illegally in the first place. What constitutes 'mentally ill'? Who makes that decision? Does a mother who's had postpartum depression count? How about someone diagnosed with mild depression due to a family illness? What happens to all of the guns already in the hands of those considered 'mentally ill'? Who'd be responsible for re-acquiring those? It's another attempt at restricting Our freedoms, that and allotting a ton of $ that'll end up in the hands of congress.
Bad idea.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Demetre
This is a great idea!
. It's just a step closer for the govt. in banning guns in general. These crazies don't necessarily have to obtain their weapons legally.


Demetre, let me start out by saying that,yes, I agree. I am sure that you are probably well aware of how much of a 2nd amendment advocate I am. However, I can't argue that there shouldn't be laws in place to keep weapons out of the hands of someone who is apt to snap.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 12:19 PM
link   
What constitutes apt to snap? Is it the man or woman that just yelled at their spouse or children. In accordance with new laws on the books, that is just one reason for considering they are mentally ill. We really have to be careful when saying someone is mentally ill. But of course little people do.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by GeneralT.
We really have to be careful when saying someone is mentally ill. But of course little people do.


General, well if you look at the current DSM, I guess all of us are mentally ill.
They diagnose every little personality quark as a "mental illness," nowadays. You're not shy anymore, you have "social phobia disorder," or "borderline personality disorder," if you are somewhat insecure about yourself. It's ridiculous.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 02:12 PM
link   
My ex-wife is a schizophrenic and refuses to take medications. She can act Ok for a while but when she gets delusional, watch out. Why should she be able to saunter into a gun store and buy a pistol to whack me and the three kids I am raising alone because the voices are telling her that we should all go to heaven ?

In this day and age, a person has to be an IMMANENT danger to themselves or others before anything can be done. If the insane person can sit and talk halfway rationally for five minutes with a mental health worker and deny that they have any bad intentions, then they are free to go about their merry way with no restrictions. Only the absolute worst cases, those with a criminal history and active charges, end up institutionalzed. The rest walk the streets until they snap; then society buries the victims and laments the system and nothing changes.

I support any law that keeps people like her from getting a gun. But I found out that in our state, there is no office concerned with investigating the mentally ill and determining who is likley too unstable to have the right to carry, and no way to enter the info on a database that is of any use to the public ! So while I shudder at the thought of more repressive gun laws, I think we have enough now, I still would like to see a way to keep the mentally ill away from guns unless it can be shown that their illness is unlikley to cause them to become delusional or agressive when on or OFF of their medications.

Many, if not most, schizophrenics routinely stop medicines as they hate the effects, if they take them at all. No one can force them to unless they are involutarily committed and today that is difficult to achieve. Sure, there needs to be safeguards for sure so that marginal cases are not denied weapons. But I tend to err on the side of caution in dealing with some patients, they can and do ruin lives every day in this nation.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by eyewitness86


I If the insane person can sit and talk halfway rationally for five minutes with a mental health worker and deny that they have any bad intentions, then they are free to go about their merry way with no restrictions. Only the absolute worst cases, those with a criminal history and active charges, end up institutionalzed.


I don't buy it. Psychology and psychiatry both have turned into nothing more or less than money making rackets. They diagnose just about everyone that comes into their office with some sort of mental ailment of "mental disease."



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 04:18 PM
link   
I support this so long as what constitutes Mentally Ill is spelled out and things that really
are not going to effect ones owning a gun not included on the list.

Psychopathy, Schizophrenia, Severe depression, God complex (wait, than I could'nt have one
)
well really intense version and various other serious things like that.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kruel
I wonder what their definition of mentally ill encompasses.


Or who. Remember homosexuals were considered mentally ill just a few years ago.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
, God complex (wait, than I could'nt have one
)


It's called the Messiah Complex.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
It's called the Messiah Complex.


I thought that's where someone thought they were akin to Jesus or Mohammad.

And god complex meaning thinking they are a god.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei


I thought that's where someone thought they were akin to Jesus or Mohammad.

And god complex meaning thinking they are a god.


Not to my knowledge... If you think you are God, you still have the Messiah complex as far as I know.

[edit on 29-6-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Not to my knowledge... If you think you are God, you still have the Messiah complex as far as I know.


Well I'm no psychologist, so I'm not really sure.

It seems like for clarity sake that they sh/would have two separate conditions though.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 11:52 AM
link   
I have dealt firsthand with this subject, personally. Just because a psychiatrist or mental health worker makes a preliminary diagnoses does NOT mean that the client will be institutionalized, not at all.

What I said stands: It takes a determination that a person is a threat to themselves or others AT THAT MOMENT, or they cannot be held against their will. You may be right that most psych's will find some label to pin on almost anyone; still, that is a FAR CRY from actually being detained and institutionalized, believe me. The bar is set very high. This protects the marginal patient from being taken away if he is not a danger, but it also allows the slick and system wise patient to cvircumvent the process and escape being held.

My ex was taken by a Magistrates Order from my home and taken for evaluation. She was clearly delusional, but denied being a danger. they were going to release her and send her home until I took the kids down there are demanded that the story be listened to; her death threats against the kids and me, her delusional state and break with reality..and finally they took her away. They kept her for three months and then let her go,; she promptly threw her meds away and started raising hell. It took court action and restraining orders, etc. to finally get her to leave us alone. Do not tell me that you know the system until you have had to rely on it for help.

During the 70's, there was a move to empty the mental hospitals of all but the worst inmates. rather than languishing in a hospital, they now languish on the streets if they have no support. Humane? Maybe, but the rest of society takes the risk of their conduct when they go off. Now a person has to be really provably dangerous before they will take a chance on some lawyer suing them for making an error. Less risk for them means more for us.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
I don't buy it. Psychology and psychiatry both have turned into nothing more or less than money making rackets.


OOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCCCCHHHHHHHHH!

I majored in psychology! Excuse me while I go find some bandages and ointment to put in my wounds.




top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join