Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Starting From Scratch.

Should ANY EFFORT be made in regards to the prevention of mentally ill people from owning firearms?

If so, what efforts?

I’m confused that many here see gun ownership for the mentally ill as a bad idea, then oppose ANY efforts to determine if somebody is mentally ill? Is this assessment accurate?

Good question, I have asked that myself. A can of worms for sure. That might be why the problem is unsolved?

Sure. A .gov plan to regulate a constitutional right.

Same laws in place in 1950 or even as lates as 1990 should be about right,
Didn't seem to be many mental shootings back then so maybe this BGC law is creating problems..
All of this is a society problem maybe we should outlaw all this new control, permissiveness, acceptness and diversity it is creating to much divisiveness.

So then your answer is “no, whether a person is bipolar or schizophrenic, he or she still has a constitutional right to carry a firearm, and protect themselves from any PERCIEVED threat to their life?”

If a guy's wife is suicidal, would they take the dude's guns?

You admitted you're "Confused..." There go your guns.

The main reason these mass shootings occur in the first place is due to out of control Marxist political correctness and policy – specifically the shuttering of mental health institutions and psychiatric hospitals nationwide, which has resulted in a deluge of mentally unstable people in every city and almost on every street corner. Couple that with lenient, progressive laws that have decriminalized many criminal acts and the demise of the American family and the lack of strong role models for children, and you have a recipe for such disasters. Plain and simple.

Those are cute quips, but you are ducking the question.

What would a wife’s mental state have to do with the husband’s right to firearms? I would hope he would be responsible enough to keep access away from his suicidal wife.
But Dan, are you going to give me an honest reply? Do we do nothing in the way of prevention to stop people with hullcinating illnesses, access to firearms..is that your answer?

One common denominator I suspect for the people who wish to senselessly kill strangers is drug treatment when young. Addrall, Redalin and other names for antidepressants or stimulants given to control behavior (ADHD, etc). I would like to see the history of use of these drugs by mass-killers to see if this could be a contributor to their unstable mental state.

This is a super tough question.

I tend to think that the line between mentally ill in the clinical sense and hopelessly nihilistic is very blurry.

The fact is that in a free society, particularly one such as ours which lacks central grounding/unifying factors (such as religion or ideals) a lot of this is inevitable. Even if we were to find a way to get anyone with a genuine mental illness on the “bad” list and avoid gratuitous placement of those w/o such a malady on that same list we’d not do away with the problem.

I’d rather have so much freedom that there is a chance I’ll be in a plane blown up by a bomber or in a mall attacked by a mass shooter than in one where the gov guarantees me perfect safety.

The latter is more of a nightmare to me than the former.

Yep, I agree with all of that, but now that the guy is schizophrenic...which by the way in many cases is heredity.

If she is a felon can guns be kept in their home?

Serious questions Barkoff, as I can tell you feel strongly about this highly controversial and difficult to address issue:

Does a person have a "right" to be mentally ill? (right now, in many (most?) States the answer is yes, witness the millions on the street)

And if so, when does society step in to restrict that right?

And then, what measures of restriction are acceptable before the start infringing on the rights of the non-mentally ill?

Geno

We don’t live in a sane society. There are people who are wanting to take out guns and will use any incremental step as a way to get further on down the road to getting them all.

But, if we actually lived in a sane society where gun confiscation was not an issue and a goal of the damned communist and people were actually concerned about limiting the access of mental patients and criminals something like a carry license would work. It would be granted to anyone with a clean record for a minimal fee of $25 or so. It would be renewed every five years and certain criminal convictions and/or mental referrals would get it revoked with an administrative appeal being available. These would not be administered on the federal level but rather the state level.

Setting aside any constitutional concerns and the other concerns I noted above, such a system would and in fact HAS worked quite well. Very few of these mass shooters, and very few criminal shooters at all, have been CCL holders in any jurisdiction.

But I’m not sure how anything like that could be done by consensus in todays climate even if it were constitutional.

I dont trust .gov to be able to properly institute and run a program to make us all safer.

Well we did used to step in until the ACLU fought for the rights of the mentally ill to be the ones to determine whether or not they are mentally ill. So my opinion is yes, the same laws we apply for the elderly no longer able to handle their affairs. I am betting the majority of people with a mentally ill family member, would jump at the chance to apply to the courts for a designated trustee with legal rights to force a member diagnose by a doctor, into treatment.

That is certainly understandable, so it’s not so much about rights as it is about a lack of trust of the government?

How about family that applies to have gun rights taken from a sick relative? Go before a judge just like a restraing order application?

Let's have a test to see how it works.

Communities should supply homeless with firearms.

The homeless are predominately mentally ill and this should give everyone a good idea if such a person should have a gun or not. Good luck!

This^^^^ X100


mike r