Gun Owners Get Stabbed In The Back

[Ebowed]

This bill just proves how people have an unrealistic view of mental illness.

Rights should not be restricted automatically because of mental illness, but rather decided on a case-by-case basis.  Many people who are mentally ill, if they aren't told that they're hopeless maniacs by the rest of society anyway, are very competent and able to function normally most of the time.

On the other hand, no one should be allowed to own a gun.  But I'm just worried about the principle of denying rights on the basis of mental illness.

[dead0man]

Hey, no fair, you actually read the article and then chose not to be a hypocrite.

[Gabu]

Hey, no fair, you actually read the article and then chose not to be a hypocrite.

Hypocrite?  Pray tell, in what way are we putting on a false pretense of virtue?

[dead0man]

Hey, no fair, you actually read the article and then chose not to be a hypocrite.

Hypocrite?  Pray tell, in what way are we putting on a false pretense of virtue?

Most of the rest of you were just happy it was now harder (impossible) for another percentage of the US population to get guns, it didn't matter how they chose to remove those guns.  You just saw "gun owners stabbed in the back" and assumed it was just a win for the gun control crowd.  It was a win for them, but, as Ebowed pointed out, it's a dangerous path we're on when we start removing Constitutional rights from people based on their sanity or lack thereof.  We would be pissed if somebody passed a law telling people with a mental illness that they couldn't march in a peace rally or start a newspaper, especially if that mental illness only happened right after their parents were murdered in front of them and then the mental illness left 10 months later.  And we still wouldn't let them march or print. 

That would be stupid.  So is this.

[Person Man]

I feel that the insane should not be allowed to own a gun, but if a hearing is requested by a person, I think it should be given, instead of just listening to what 1 doctor says.  Of course, then 1 person will slip through the cracks because the hearing reverses the decision, the guy kills some people and lawsuits go out all over.

That would be a reasonable punishment for someone allowing one to slip through the cracks. Although my question remains unanswered. What is the statutory definition for a "person who is prohibited from buying a gun for reasons of insanity"?

[Bono]

I feel that the insane should not be allowed to own a gun, but if a hearing is requested by a person, I think it should be given, instead of just listening to what 1 doctor says.  Of course, then 1 person will slip through the cracks because the hearing reverses the decision, the guy kills some people and lawsuits go out all over.

That would be a reasonable punishment for someone allowing one to slip through the cracks. Although my question remains unanswered. What is the statutory definition for a "person who is prohibited from buying a gun for reasons of insanity"?

Anyone found by any "lawful authority" (including a IDEA school therapist, a Medicare psychologist, or a VA doctor to:

        1. Represent even a minimal suicide risk;

        2. Represent even a minimal playground risk to other students; or

        3. Be incapable of managing his own affairs; or

    * Were referred by such "lawful authority" to a psychiatrist or psychologist to be evaluated in connection with child custody proceedings or other contexts in which professional assessment is ordered.

This means that a future hypothetical pro-gun administration would be powerless to change the regulations so that they did not apply to:

    -- Veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder;

    -- Kids put on Ritalin in connection with the IDEA program;

In the pretense of doing gun owners some huge favor, the bill explicitly recognizes, in section 101(c)(1)(C), that a psychiatrist's finding is sufficient to make you a prohibited person, so long as that finding is based on one of the three criteria listed above. And, incidentally, when a kid is put on Ritalin, a vet is found to have post-traumatic stress disorder, or gramps is put under a guardianship, it is ALMOST ALWAYS based, in whole or in part, on one of those three factors.

[minionofmidas]

If anyone in this country needs to be prevented from owning a firearm (besides criminals and non-citizens), it should be the mentally ill.  I don't care whether they are receiving treatment for it or not -they should not have access to guns...period. 

But that's not the problem here.  The problem is who gets to say who's mentally ill and then the difficulty of proving your sanity if you become sane again.

Although it should be used with caution, the DSM-IV is a good start.

Only in its earlier incarnations when it included homosexuality. God help us if the fags get armed and dangerous.

[Joe Republic]

If anyone in this country needs to be prevented from owning a firearm (besides criminals and non-citizens), it should be the mentally ill.  I don't care whether they are receiving treatment for it or not -they should not have access to guns...period. 

But that's not the problem here.  The problem is who gets to say who's mentally ill and then the difficulty of proving your sanity if you become sane again.

Although it should be used with caution, the DSM-IV is a good start.

Only in its earlier incarnations when it included homosexuality. God help us if the fags get armed and dangerous.

That was the "caution" I was talking about.

[minionofmidas]

If anyone in this country needs to be prevented from owning a firearm (besides criminals and non-citizens), it should be the mentally ill.  I don't care whether they are receiving treatment for it or not -they should not have access to guns...period. 

But that's not the problem here.  The problem is who gets to say who's mentally ill and then the difficulty of proving your sanity if you become sane again.

Although it should be used with caution, the DSM-IV is a good start.

Only in its earlier incarnations when it included homosexuality. God help us if the fags get armed and dangerous.

That was the "caution" I was talking about.

While what I meant was.... the DSM-IV is not a good start as it's way too broad.

[Joe Republic]

Then I suppose it's lucky that the DSM-V is due in the next few years.

The classifications may not be perfect, and may be subject to change with social opinion (e.g. homosexuality), but it's pretty much the best way of drawing a sensible line between the sane and insane.

[tik 🪀✨]

Gun owners who get stabbed? You'd think they'd be better at defending themselves.

[Joe Republic]

Gun owners who get stabbed? You'd think they'd be better at defending themselves.

Of the several attempts to turn that headline into the pun it so desperately deserved, this was the best one.

A+++ would buy again

[minionofmidas]

Then I suppose it's lucky that the DSM-V is due in the next few years.

The classifications may not be perfect, and may be subject to change with social opinion (e.g. homosexuality), but it's pretty much the best way of drawing a sensible line between the sane and insane.

No... that's exactly what it's not. Unless sanity is considered rare and abnormal.

It's a wee bit like drawing the line between the sick and the healthy in such a way that anyone who's seen a doctor in their lifetime is thereby "sick".

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I feel that the insane should not be allowed to own a gun, but if a hearing is requested by a person, I think it should be given, instead of just listening to what 1 doctor says.  Of course, then 1 person will slip through the cracks because the hearing reverses the decision, the guy kills some people and lawsuits go out all over.

That would be a reasonable punishment for someone allowing one to slip through the cracks. Although my question remains unanswered. What is the statutory definition for a "person who is prohibited from buying a gun for reasons of insanity"?

Anyone found by any "lawful authority" (including a IDEA school therapist, a Medicare psychologist, or a VA doctor to:

        1. Represent even a minimal suicide risk;

        2. Represent even a minimal playground risk to other students; or

        3. Be incapable of managing his own affairs; or

    * Were referred by such "lawful authority" to a psychiatrist or psychologist to be evaluated in connection with child custody proceedings or other contexts in which professional assessment is ordered.

This means that a future hypothetical pro-gun administration would be powerless to change the regulations so that they did not apply to:

    -- Veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder;

    -- Kids put on Ritalin in connection with the IDEA program;

In the pretense of doing gun owners some huge favor, the bill explicitly recognizes, in section 101(c)(1)(C), that a psychiatrist's finding is sufficient to make you a prohibited person, so long as that finding is based on one of the three criteria listed above. And, incidentally, when a kid is put on Ritalin, a vet is found to have post-traumatic stress disorder, or gramps is put under a guardianship, it is ALMOST ALWAYS based, in whole or in part, on one of those three factors.

You know how many kids are put on Ritalin and don't need it - it's the drug people get prescribed when  they don't want to have to discipline their kids.

EDIT: Not that there are NO cases when Ritalin should be prescribed, but it's too overused.

[Person Man]

I feel that the insane should not be allowed to own a gun, but if a hearing is requested by a person, I think it should be given, instead of just listening to what 1 doctor says.  Of course, then 1 person will slip through the cracks because the hearing reverses the decision, the guy kills some people and lawsuits go out all over.

That would be a reasonable punishment for someone allowing one to slip through the cracks. Although my question remains unanswered. What is the statutory definition for a "person who is prohibited from buying a gun for reasons of insanity"?

Anyone found by any "lawful authority" (including a IDEA school therapist, a Medicare psychologist, or a VA doctor to:

        1. Represent even a minimal suicide risk;

        2. Represent even a minimal playground risk to other students; or

        3. Be incapable of managing his own affairs; or

    * Were referred by such "lawful authority" to a psychiatrist or psychologist to be evaluated in connection with child custody proceedings or other contexts in which professional assessment is ordered.

This means that a future hypothetical pro-gun administration would be powerless to change the regulations so that they did not apply to:

    -- Veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder;

    -- Kids put on Ritalin in connection with the IDEA program;

In the pretense of doing gun owners some huge favor, the bill explicitly recognizes, in section 101(c)(1)(C), that a psychiatrist's finding is sufficient to make you a prohibited person, so long as that finding is based on one of the three criteria listed above. And, incidentally, when a kid is put on Ritalin, a vet is found to have post-traumatic stress disorder, or gramps is put under a guardianship, it is ALMOST ALWAYS based, in whole or in part, on one of those three factors.

You know how many kids are put on Ritalin and don't need it - it's the drug people get prescribed when  they don't want to have to discipline their kids.

EDIT: Not that there are NO cases when Ritalin should be prescribed, but it's too overused.

I took my step-daughter off of drugs and she has been doing just fine the past couple of weeks.


What does it mean to represent "even a minimal playground risk to other students?".... I got put on Ritilin by IDEA, but it was just for anxiety and focus.

I am not incompetent or even wanted to kill myself... my wife has, however been suicidal at one point.

My main concern is on that second prong and whether one could ever be de black-listed.