A de facto death sentence for the "mentally ill" and ex-cons is barbaric

minarchist · Apr 11, 2013

Why are supposedly pro-RKBA politicians saying things like "We all agree that [currently forbidden classes of persons] should not have guns." when this is not only not true, but highly absurd? If someone is a danger, that person should (in the case of a conviction) been given a longer sentence to allow more time for rehabilitation (or kept in prison for life), or, in the case of alleged mental illness, been placed in an institution after due process. Anyone who is not in custody (either prison or an insane asylum) should be free to own any sort of gun that he or she can afford. To strip someone of the most effective means of self-defense is a de facto death sentence if an individual finds himself in the wrong situation through no fault of his/her own.

Citizen · Apr 11, 2013

Excellent positioning--equating senseless deprivation with barbarity.

Also, its paranoiac. Clearly, the people who deny the fundamental right to self-defense see boogeymen in every unchained felon or human having emotional/mental challenges. Insofar as their position is demonstrably untrue,* their paranoia is too easily proved. By their own lights, they themselves should be deprived for mental or emotional instability.

*Lots of felonies do not include violence. Three-strikes shoplifters, bad-check writers, etc. And, vastly more people have emotional/mental difficulties than the actual count of those who commit violence with a weapon.

SFCRetired · Apr 11, 2013

There was, at one time in this country, facilities for the isolation of those with tuberculosis or Hansen's Disease. I fail to understand why it is so wrong to, after due medical and legal process, isolate those in our society who are in need of treatment or who are of a nature that they cannot live in society without posing a risk of harm to others.

The tuberculosis hospitals were staffed, for the most part, with people who cared about the patients and did their best to give them the best possible care. I knew people who were patients at those hospitals and they had nothing but good things to say about them.

I do think that, once a person has either served their full sentence or been adjudged sane, their full civil rights should be restored. There may be some, hopefully very rare, exceptions, but, in the case of law-breakers, such used to be the case. As it is now, we are pretty well establishing a revolving door to the prison system.

Citizen · Apr 11, 2013

SFCRetired said:
There was, at one time in this country, facilities for the isolation of those with tuberculosis or Hansen's Disease. I fail to understand why it is so wrong to, after due medical and legal process, isolate those in our society who are in need of treatment or who are of a nature that they cannot live in society without posing a risk of harm to others.

The tuberculosis hospitals were staffed, for the most part, with people who cared about the patients and did their best to give them the best possible care. I knew people who were patients at those hospitals and they had nothing but good things to say about them.

I do think that, once a person has either served their full sentence or been adjudged sane, their full civil rights should be restored. There may be some, hopefully very rare, exceptions, but, in the case of law-breakers, such used to be the case. As it is now, we are pretty well establishing a revolving door to the prison system.

Well of course. There's an entire industry arisen around the prison system. They got lobbyists now. They're kinda like lice infesting all of society. Apologies to lice for the comparison.

davidmcbeth · Apr 11, 2013

minarchist said:
Why are supposedly pro-RKBA politicians saying things like "We all agree that [currently forbidden classes of persons] should not have guns." when this is not only not true, but highly absurd? If someone is a danger, that person should (in the case of a conviction) been given a longer sentence to allow more time for rehabilitation (or kept in prison for life), or, in the case of alleged mental illness, been placed in an institution after due process. Anyone who is not in custody (either prison or an insane asylum) should be free to own any sort of gun that he or she can afford. To strip someone of the most effective means of self-defense is a de facto death sentence if an individual finds himself in the wrong situation through no fault of his/her own.

Ok... then is there anyone who should be prohibited from owning/possessing a gun? Not the law - what you think the law should be.

ADobbs1989 · Apr 11, 2013

davidmcbeth said:
Ok... then is there anyone who should be prohibited from owning/possessing a gun? Not the law - what you think the law should be.

Criminals within the system, and mentally ill patients who are receiving hospitalized treatment. As has been said, if someone is released from prison, or a mental institution, the only reason those things should happen is if with reasonable certainty the person is no longer a danger. If they are still a danger they shouldn't be out. If they are out=they shouldn't be dangerous=they should have all their rights restored.

Aknazer · Apr 11, 2013

davidmcbeth said:
Ok... then is there anyone who should be prohibited from owning/possessing a gun? Not the law - what you think the law should be.

Criminals that are inside of jail/prison, criminals that served at least one year but have been out for less than five years (basically a probationary period after jail but before full rights are restored) and those ruled mentally incompetent to the point of either needing to be locked up or require a guardian regardless of their physical age. I don't think that those with restraining orders against them should have their guns taken away since if they are truly a threat to the other person then they will find a way to carry out their violence with or without a gun and so it just turns into a dragnet that doesn't stop those who are really a threat.

Beretta92FSLady · Apr 11, 2013

ADobbs1989 said:
Criminals within the system, and mentally ill patients who are receiving hospitalized treatment. As has been said, if someone is released from prison, or a mental institution, the only reason those things should happen is if with reasonable certainty the person is no longer a danger. If they are still a danger they shouldn't be out. If they are out=they shouldn't be dangerous=they should have all their rights restored.

On the surface your reasoning seems like it makes sense. I'm not stating you're wrong.

Keep in mind, there are degrees of mental illness, and capacitation. There are plenty of individuals who are mentally ill, but are unstable enough that they ought not own firearms; most of the time they keep their crapola together, but they are at risk for losing their crapola, and lashing out violently. I know the post that will likely follow, but I could care less.

Some individuals who are mentally ill ought not have the Right to keep and bear firearms. There are alternatives for self-defense that are much less dangerous to be wielded by individuals who are mentally ill to a degree where they are at risk for being very unstable.

skidmark · Apr 11, 2013

Whether I agree or disagree with the basic premise, it needs to be asked -

Why is not having possession of a firearm equated with a death sentence?

To strip someone of the most effective means of self-defense is a de facto death sentence if an individual finds himself in the wrong situation through no fault of his/her own.

Are all the not-as-effective means so much less that they in fact can not provide for self defense?

After getting an answer to thast, I suppose I shoud also seek clarification regarding if the OP meant possession of a firearm is the most efficient method of self defense, as opposed to effective.

Mostly what the OP has done is expose the conundrum of what society sees and dangerous and how it responds to actual continuing danger. The gun is bad. Keep guns away from folks who have done bad things that may not even be related to guns. Driving under the influence of alcohol is bad. But not as bad as the gun. Oh! Did I just illustrate that society bans inanimate objects it is afraid of, as opposed to banning behaviors that cause harm? I'm sorry.

stay safe.

ADobbs1989 · Apr 11, 2013

Beretta92FSLady said:
On the surface your reasoning seems like it makes sense. I'm not stating you're wrong.

Keep in mind, there are degrees of mental illness, and capacitation. There are plenty of individuals who are mentally ill, but are unstable enough that they ought not own firearms; most of the time they keep their crapola together, but they are at risk for losing their crapola, and lashing out violently. I know the post that will likely follow, but I could care less.

Some individuals who are mentally ill ought not have the Right to keep and bear firearms. There are alternatives for self-defense that are much less dangerous to be wielded by individuals who are mentally ill to a degree where they are at risk for being very unstable.

But, how exactly do you propose we determine who these people are and whether or not they should be denied a right? The current trend is trying to label everyone who is, or has taken any medication for depression, anxiety, etc are all grounds for right termination. The problem is that many, if not most, Americans suffer from some sort of anxiety or depression at some point in their life. My stance is the only people that should be denied a right, are the people who have been institutionalized for their mental disabilities, and only for the duration of the institutionalization, they should only be released if they are deemed to be able to function in society, at which time their rights should be restored. Let's focus on punishing those who proved themselves not worthy of having the right, not people who "might" be dangerous. If we want to go that route it would be easy to restrict everyone as we are all human and all subject to human emotions and shortcomings.

skidmark said:
Whether I agree or disagree with the basic premise, it needs to be asked -

Why is not having possession of a firearm equated with a death sentence? Are all the not-as-effective means so much less that they in fact can not provide for self defense?

After getting an answer to thast, I suppose I shoud also seek clarification regarding if the OP meant possession of a firearm is the most efficient method of self defense, as opposed to effective.

Mostly what the OP has done is expose the conundrum of what society sees and dangerous and how it responds to actual continuing danger. The gun is bad. Keep guns away from folks who have done bad things that may not even be related to guns. Driving under the influence of alcohol is bad. But not as bad as the gun. Oh! Did I just illustrate that society bans inanimate objects it is afraid of, as opposed to banning behaviors that cause harm? I'm sorry.

stay safe.

If you have a knife, and are confronted by a criminal with a gun, most of the time you will lose. The only way to have the ability to beat a criminal with a gun, is to also be armed. A firearm is the best tool for self defense because in most situations it is going to be the highest form of force you will encounter.

Beretta92FSLady · Apr 11, 2013

ADobbs1989 said:
But, how exactly do you propose we determine who these people are and whether or not they should be denied a right?
*snippers*.

There can be a system put in place where individuals who have been placed, against their will, in a mental health facility, are given the opportunity, in a timely manner, to contest psychological diagnosis that would bar them from owning firearms.

For instance, an individual who suffers from severe depression, and has a history of suicidal ideations, ought not be permitted to own firearms; someone who's taking anything other than a simple anxiety medication, or medication for mild depression, ought be barred from owning firearms.--basically if you're taking Lithium, or some anti-psychotic medication, you ought be barred from owning firearms.

I'm getting the sense that most people on here have not dealt with severely mentally ill people in their lives. I will tell you from personal experience that when someone is severely mentally ill, they are a danger to themselves, and all people around them; they are not in a stable mental state to navigate through life bearing a firearm; particularly any person that has, for a extended period of time, been having suicidal thoughts.

ADobbs1989 · Apr 11, 2013

Beretta92FSLady said:
I'm getting the sense that most people on here have not dealt with severely mentally ill people in their lives. I will tell you from personal experience that when someone is severely mentally ill, they are a danger to themselves, and all people around them; they are not in a stable mental state to navigate through life bearing a firearm; particularly any person that has, for a extended period of time, been having suicidal thoughts.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, I just think that the funding needs to be provided to have these people institutionalized to get treatment. If someone is so mentally ill that they are going to be a danger with a firearm, they need to be in an environment where anything remotely dangerous is removed, and doctors are able to try and help this person become a functioning citizen. If rehabilitation occurs, they should be given their rights back, if they remain institutionalized, or the doctor feels that rehabilitation will never occur so they release them to live with family, then sure don't let them own a gun, but this should be a fairly rare occurrence.

Citizen · Apr 11, 2013

ADobbs1989 said:
SNIP But, how exactly do you propose we determine who these people are and whether or not they should be denied a right?

That's the crux of the question, but it depends on a premise that itself is highly questionable--that can government be trusted to sort out which rights to deny to whom?

Of course government cannot be trusted.

Beretta92FSLady · Apr 11, 2013

ADobbs1989 said:
I don't necessarily disagree with you, I just think that the funding needs to be provided to have these people institutionalized to get treatment. If someone is so mentally ill that they are going to be a danger with a firearm, they need to be in an environment where anything remotely dangerous is removed, and doctors are able to try and help this person become a functioning citizen. If rehabilitation occurs, they should be given their rights back, if they remain institutionalized, or the doctor feels that rehabilitation will never occur so they release them to live with family, then sure don't let them own a gun, but this should be a fairly rare occurrence.

Basically, you're talking about lifetime institutionalization of individuals who are severely mentally ill. Individuals who have severe depression are not rehabilitated, their illness is managed, typically by medication, sometimes with the incorporation of cognitive behavioral therapy, and sometimes shock therapy (new school, not old school).

I have stated this previous, some time ago: I had a friend who committed suicide four years ago. She suffered from severe depression for over five years; and had (roughly five or six) trips to the ICU, then recovered, attempting suicide. She was talking with me about getting a firearm; I immediately went to her therapist, and told her therapist she was shopping around for a firearm. She ended up in a gun shop a month later, and NIX nixed her. Six months later she committed suicide by other means, successfully.

As I stated: A person suffering from severe depression...I'm not talking about being in a funk, I'm not talking about depression that is managed by a mild anti-depressant...I'm talking about individuals who are treated with anti-psychotic medication, Lithium, etc., ought be barred from owning firearms, due to their illness, they are not capable of being in their right mind consistently. I've seen it time and time again, individuals who are severely depressed, losing it; they become irrational at times during a slightly heated discussion, no way they can manage keeping their firearm holstered....no thanks.

Beretta92FSLady · Apr 11, 2013

Citizen said:
That's the crux of the question, but it depends on a premise that itself is highly questionable--that can government be trusted to sort out which rights to deny to whom?

Of course government cannot be trusted.

I'll bite: If we don't leave it to the Government to sort it out, then who are we to leave it to? You? me?

Or are you basically proposing, without saying it, that the surest way to deal with it is let whomever wants to own a firearm, own a firearm, and when someone who is severely mentally ill has an episode, we simply defend our life and limp, and shoot?

I may be missing something here...maybe you have offered an alternative and I've missed it.

One thing I have always enjoyed about this forum is people get to say pretty much whatever they wish, and leave out what is not convenient for them to openly acknowledge.

ADobbs1989 · Apr 11, 2013

Beretta92FSLady said:
Basically, you're talking about lifetime institutionalization of individuals who are severely mentally ill. Individuals who have severe depression are not rehabilitated, their illness is managed, typically by medication, sometimes with the incorporation of cognitive behavioral therapy, and sometimes shock therapy (new school, not old school).

I have stated this previous, some time ago: I had a friend who committed suicide four years ago. She suffered from severe depression for over five years; and had (roughly five or six) trips to the ICU, then recovered, attempting suicide. She was talking with me about getting a firearm; I immediately went to her therapist, and told her therapist she was shopping around for a firearm. She ended up in a gun shop a month later, and NIX nixed her. Six months later she committed suicide by other means, successfully.

As I stated: A person suffering from severe depression...I'm not talking about being in a funk, I'm not talking about depression that is managed by a mild anti-depressant...I'm talking about individuals who are treated with anti-psychotic medication, Lithium, etc., ought be barred from owning firearms, due to their illness, they are not capable of being in their right mind consistently. I've seen it time and time again, individuals who are severely depressed, losing it; they become irrational at times during a slightly heated discussion, no way they can manage keeping their firearm holstered....no thanks.

Notice that I did say that if they were let out of the institution due to the doctor saying that rehabilitation would never occur to allow the person to function normally in society, then at the doctors recommendation the person could be barred from owning a gun, unless for some reason they were later rehabilitated, then they should get their rights back. I'm not necessarily talking about lifetime institutionalization, I'm talking about being institutionalized until they have been rehabilitated to a degree they are able to function normally, or are discharged as mentally deficient at which point they could lose their right to own a gun.

Beretta92FSLady · Apr 11, 2013

ADobbs1989 said:
Notice that I did say that if they were let out of the institution due to the doctor saying that rehabilitation would never occur to allow the person to function normally in society, then at the doctors recommendation the person could be barred from owning a gun, unless for some reason they were later rehabilitated, then they should get their rights back. I'm not necessarily talking about lifetime institutionalization, I'm talking about being institutionalized until they have been rehabilitated to a degree they are able to function normally, or are discharged as mentally deficient at which point they could lose their right to own a gun.

Ok. Then you support institutionalizing mentally ill individuals for life, that aren't rehabilitated?

ADobbs1989 · Apr 11, 2013

Beretta92FSLady said:
Ok. Then you support institutionalizing mentally ill individuals for life, that aren't rehabilitated?

Note the part where I said "I'm talking about being institutionalized until they have been rehabilitated to a degree they are able to function normally, or are discharged as mentally deficient at which point they could lose their right to own a gun." Which fairly clearly states that either they A. are institutionalized until they have been rehabilitated, OR. B. are discharged as mentally deficient. If they are institutionalized they automatically lose their right to own a gun, but if they are discharged without being rehabilitated then the loss of rights could carry on until they time they have been rehabilitated.

Beretta92FSLady · Apr 11, 2013

ADobbs1989 said:
Note the part where I said "I'm talking about being institutionalized until they have been rehabilitated to a degree they are able to function normally, or are discharged as mentally deficient at which point they could lose their right to own a gun." Which fairly clearly states that either they A. are institutionalized until they have been rehabilitated, OR. B. are discharged as mentally deficient. If they are institutionalized they automatically lose their right to own a gun, but if they are discharged without being rehabilitated then the loss of rights could carry on until they time they have been rehabilitated.

Where's the dotted line...I'm ready to sign it!

Beretta92FSLady · Apr 11, 2013

Nightmare said:
Your slip is showing.

It's not a slip.

A de facto death sentence for the "mentally ill" and ex-cons is barbaric

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member