🇺🇸 Discussion: Guns, The Second Amendment, NRA - Part II

[MaceB]

It’s the difference between fitting a profile to commit a certain act and actually committing the act. Unless we establish a system like they had in Minority Report, we shouldn’t be punishing people for what they might do.

Look, if you are a child of physical abuse, and now you've had a DUI, no job, alcoholism, and a history of blowing up on people... then you should have to prove your stability before owning a gun.
I understand that the 2nd amendment makes that difficult, but it's still true all the same - if you are an alcoholic with a history of domestic violence, then you really shouldn't have a firearm. Certainly not an AR-15.
Maybe the answer is to have more thorough training in order to get a gun. Like, in order to get a gun, you have to attend a 2 week course, that goes over substance abuse, personal history, a psychiatric review, and whatever else.

 

[ComicBookNerd]

This would probably be a whole lot easier if we broke this "mental illness" term up a bit, because it is a pretty wide and diverse category.

There are all kinds of mental health conditions in which the victim shouldn't have a gun:

Bipolar Disorder
Depression
Dissociation
Psychosis
Schizophrenia
Post Traumatic Stress

These conditions are by and large able to be diagnosed.

There are also Mental health conditions that shouldn't affect one's ability to own a gun.

ADHD
Autism
Eating Disorders
Obsessive compulsive

I'm sure we can develop these categories to protect folks who can still safely carry a gun.

I have to disagree with depression, PTSD, & bipolar disorder being disqualifiers. Having those problems doesn’t necessarily make you more violent than an average person. This is why I think it’s best to judge someone by a history of violence instead of a psychological diagnosis.

 

[ComicBookNerd]

Look, if you are a child of physical abuse, and now you've had a DUI, no job, alcoholism, and a history of blowing up on people... then you should have to prove your stability before owning a gun.
I understand that the 2nd amendment makes that difficult, but it's still true all the same - if you are an alcoholic with a history of domestic violence, then you really shouldn't have a firearm. Certainly not an AR-15.
Maybe the answer is to have more thorough training in order to get a gun. Like, in order to get a gun, you have to attend a 2 week course, that goes over substance abuse, personal history, a psychiatric review, and whatever else.

I’m fine with having to prove competence, so long as it applies to everyone (not just those with mental illnesses). But like you said, the 2nd amendment makes that complicated.

 

[MaceB]

I have to disagree with depression, PTSD, & bipolar disorder being disqualifiers. Having those problems doesn’t necessarily make you more violent than an average person. This is why I think it’s best to judge someone by a history of violence instead of a psychological diagnosis.

If you are depressed, you're more likely to commit suicide with a gun.

If you have PTSD, you really shouldn't have a gun. That leads to increased anxiety levels and on-edge behavior that could easily spill over into an incident. There are lots of examples of folks with PTSD having split second reactions for the worse.

Bipolar Disorder, same thing. By definition, it is high lows (which could lead to suicide) or manic highs (which could lead to violence against others.)

You would rather we take the risk of giving compromised people highly powerful deadly weapons because some wouldn't inflict harm? They can always get a clean bill of health, you know. None of these disorders are necessarily permanent. If the 2nd amendment is so all encompassing that we have to willingly give weapons to people in unwell condition... then... well... it's about damn time to reconsider the 2nd amendment I guess. A person's desire to have a deadly weapon comes second to our societal safety. That's what I say.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

This would probably be a whole lot easier if we broke this "mental illness" term up a bit, because it is a pretty wide and diverse category.

There are all kinds of mental health conditions in which the victim shouldn't have a gun:

Bipolar Disorder
Depression
Dissociation
Psychosis
Schizophrenia
Post Traumatic Stress

These conditions are by and large able to be diagnosed.

There are also Mental health conditions that shouldn't affect one's ability to own a gun.

ADHD
Autism
Eating Disorders
Obsessive compulsive

I'm sure we can develop these categories to protect folks who can still safely carry a gun.

I agree with everything except for autism. My niece has autism and I don't believe she would have the wherewithal to fully understand the implication of what she should and shouldn't point a gun at. I also could see somebody taking advantage of her to get access to her weapon.

If you're on the spectrum then there should be clear guidelines set for whichever part you fall under. We are also right back to where we started seeing as how most of the current research tends to show almost all mental illnesses have their own inherent spectrum.

Look, if you are a child of physical abuse, and now you've had a DUI, no job, alcoholism, and a history of blowing up on people... then you should have to prove your stability before owning a gun.
I understand that the 2nd amendment makes that difficult, but it's still true all the same - if you are an alcoholic with a history of domestic violence, then you really shouldn't have a firearm. Certainly not an AR-15.
Maybe the answer is to have more thorough training in order to get a gun. Like, in order to get a gun, you have to attend a 2 week course, that goes over substance abuse, personal history, a psychiatric review, and whatever else.

I'm an alcoholic with 2 DUI's, was diagnosed with Schizo-affective and bi-polar (the first now just qualifies as schizophrenia), and I agree with the above statement.

I've been sober for over 3 years now and it was not until recently I felt comfortable having a firearm in my home again. Should I ever relapse or begin to show signs of psychosis again, I absolutely hope I have the capacity to turn over my gun or be relieved of it until I am cleared to have access to it again.

I have to disagree with depression, PTSD, & bipolar disorder being disqualifiers. Having those problems doesn’t necessarily make you more violent than an average person. This is why I think it’s best to judge someone by a history of violence instead of a psychological diagnosis.

Depression absolutely should have your guns taken away. My cousin was seeing a therapist for awhile telling them of her thoughts of suicide and my family was worried for her. She took her life leaving behind 2 daughters.

PTSD should absolutely have weapons taken away until cleared. Specifically, for military personal back from active duty. Go hang out with some of us vets on July 4th and see how much fun it is.

 

[ComicBookNerd]

If you are depressed, you're more likely to commit suicide with a gun.

If you have PTSD, you really shouldn't have a gun. That leads to increased anxiety levels and on-edge behavior that could easily spill over into an incident. There are lots of examples of folks with PTSD having split second reactions for the worse.

Bipolar Disorder, same thing. By definition, it is high lows (which could lead to suicide) or manic highs (which could lead to violence against others.)

You would rather we take the risk of giving compromised people highly powerful deadly weapons because some wouldn't inflict harm? They can always get a clean bill of health, you know. None of these disorders are necessarily permanent. If the 2nd amendment is so all encompassing that we have to willingly give weapons to people in unwell condition... then... well... it's about damn time to reconsider the 2nd amendment I guess. A person's desire to have a deadly weapon comes second to our societal safety. That's what I say.

Suicide is a different matter. If we take a depressed person’s guns away, there are plenty of other ways to commit suicide (overdosing, hanging, carbon monoxide inhalation, jumping, electrocution, drowning, etc). If you’re going to take someone’s rights away, you do it based on what they’ve done, not what they might do. Imagine if instead of discriminating based off of psychological profiles, we did it based on racial profiles. Would you be cool with taking away people’s guns if statistics suggested that certain racial groups are more inclined to commit acts of violence? Or how about economic class, since the poor are more likely to commit violent crimes? Taking action against people based on a profile is literally what Hydra tried to do in The Winter Soldier.

 

[MaceB]

Race is just skin pigmentation. It's not predictive per say. I don't use biology to predict someone's behavior. Upbringing and environmental factors though... that actually is predictive to a certain extent. If you are abused as a kid and not supported through love, then you are going to have a rough and tumble adulthood... without therapy at least. You can write that one down.

In terms of there being many ways to kill yourself... as someone else mentioned in this thread.... guns have the most high lethality rate when it comes to suicide, by far. If you re depressed, then you don't need a gun. The fact that there are so many other ways to kill yourself only reinforces why they shouldn't have a gun. If they are going to do it, they can try any number of ways. They don't need our help by giving them a lethal weapon. If someone is depressed, they should go on medication, get some therapy, ask for a clean bill of health... and then we can move on from there.

And suicide is not a different matter at all. We're talking about the massive amount of gun deaths in this country. One shouldn't have a gun for all kinds of reasons, whether it be because they are a harm to themselves or others. It seems like you are looking for a perfect answer. Like, we can't stop the mentally ill from having guns because not all mentally ill are dangerous. That's true, but your solution seems to be to allow the dangerous to have guns because there's no universally fair option. Unfortunately there never will be a perfect option. Never. We have to do the best with what we have, and not allowing those with a history of mental illness to have guns would almost certainly save lives.

I'm sorry that some of those with mental illness would see this as unfair. But let's just establish a protocol where a doctor's clean bill of health will allow you to get one. Problem solved. Dealing with this issue is tough, but doing nothing because we can't make it perfect is not an option. Baby steps.

 

[ComicBookNerd]

Race is just skin pigmentation. It's not predictive per say. I don't use biology to predict someone's behavior. Upbringing and environmental factors though... that actually is predictive to a certain extent. If you are abused as a kid and not supported through love, then you are going to have a rough and tumble adulthood... without therapy at least. You can write that one down.

In terms of there being many ways to kill yourself... as someone else mentioned in this thread.... guns have the most high lethality rate when it comes to suicide, by far. If you re depressed, then you don't need a gun. The fact that there are so many other ways to kill yourself only reinforces why they shouldn't have a gun. If they are going to do it, they can try any number of ways. They don't need our help by giving them a lethal weapon. If someone is depressed, they should go on medication, get some therapy, ask for a clean bill of health... and then we can move on from there.

And suicide is not a different matter at all. We're talking about the massive amount of gun deaths in this country. One shouldn't have a gun for all kinds of reasons, whether it be because they are a harm to themselves or others. It seems like you are looking for a perfect answer. Like, we can't stop the mentally ill from having guns because not all mentally ill are dangerous. That's true, but your solution seems to be to allow the dangerous to have guns because there's no universally fair option. Unfortunately there never will be a perfect option. Never. We have to do the best with what we have, and not allowing those with a history of mental illness to have guns would almost certainly save lives.

I'm sorry that some of those with mental illness would see this as unfair. But let's just establish a protocol where a doctor's clean bill of health will allow you to get one. Problem solved. Dealing with this issue is tough, but doing nothing because we can't make it perfect is not an option. Baby steps.

I’m not really a fan of guns, but many people have guns for self protection. Is it fair to take someone’s right to protect themselves away just because they get depressed. I can’t see that working out in America.

 

[MaceB]

I’m not really a fan of guns, but many people have guns for self protection. Is it fair to take someone’s right to protect themselves away just because they get depressed. I can’t see that working out in America.

I'm not arguing whether or not it can happen. I'm arguing that it should happen. And yes, if you have a mental illness where you might be prone to self harm (and as long as suicide in this country is illegal) then it's totally appropriate to take their gun away as long as their is a mechanism in place for them to get it back.
Again, your right to a gun comes second to my right to survive.
Like I said, you are looking for a 100% fair option. Well, spoiler alert... that aint gonna happen, not ever. We have to do the best we can with what we have, and I'm completely comfortable arguing that folks with certain mental illnesses should not have guns while they have that diagnosis. I understand how folks like you and them could be upset by this, but I'm not comfortable with the alternative... which sounds like crossing our fingers and hoping for the best.

 

[ComicBookNerd]

I agree with everything except for autism. My niece has autism and I don't believe she would have the wherewithal to fully understand the implication of what she should and shouldn't point a gun at. I also could see somebody taking advantage of her to get access to her weapon.

If you're on the spectrum then there should be clear guidelines set for whichever part you fall under. We are also right back to where we started seeing as how most of the current research tends to show almost all mental illnesses have their own inherent spectrum.



I'm an alcoholic with 2 DUI's, was diagnosed with Schizo-affective and bi-polar (the first now just qualifies as schizophrenia), and I agree with the above statement.

I've been sober for over 3 years now and it was not until recently I felt comfortable having a firearm in my home again. Should I ever relapse or begin to show signs of psychosis again, I absolutely hope I have the capacity to turn over my gun or be relieved of it until I am cleared to have access to it again.



Depression absolutely should have your guns taken away. My cousin was seeing a therapist for awhile telling them of her thoughts of suicide and my family was worried for her. She took her life leaving behind 2 daughters.

PTSD should absolutely have weapons taken away until cleared. Specifically, for military personal back from active duty. Go hang out with some of us vets on July 4th and see how much fun it is.

If you tell your doctor that you’re contemplating suicide, then you should be temporarily institutionalized & put on suicide watch. Taking away your rights seems rather excessive considering being depressed isn’t a crime of any sort. If having access to guns while depressed is a threat to the person who’s depressed, then it should be up to the individual or their loved ones to make sure they don’t have access to guns, not the government. If the government gets so intrusive against people with depression, that will just be another reason to not get help.

In short, we should be encouraging people to get help (starting with giving people access to healthcare coverage). Taking people’s rights away will do the opposite.

 

[MaceB]

If you tell your doctor that you’re contemplating suicide, then you should be temporarily institutionalized & put on suicide watch. Taking away your rights seems rather excessive considering being depressed isn’t a crime of any sort. If having access to guns while depressed is a threat to the person who’s depressed, then it should be up to the individual or their loved ones to make sure they don’t have access to guns, not the government. If the government gets so intrusive against people with depression, that will just be another reason to not get help.

In short, we should be encouraging people to get help (starting with giving people access to healthcare coverage). Taking people’s rights away will do the opposite.

So, if someone is depressed, we should forcibly institutionalize them? And that's not an example of taking away rights, whereas taking away guns is?

 

[ComicBookNerd]

I'm not arguing whether or not it can happen. I'm arguing that it should happen. And yes, if you have a mental illness where you might be prone to self harm (and as long as suicide in this country is illegal) then it's totally appropriate to take their gun away as long as their is a mechanism in place for them to get it back.
Again, your right to a gun comes second to my right to survive.
Like I said, you are looking for a 100% fair option. Well, spoiler alert... that aint gonna happen, not ever. We have to do the best we can with what we have, and I'm completely comfortable arguing that folks with certain mental illnesses should not have guns while they have that diagnosis. I understand how folks like you and them could be upset by this, but I'm not comfortable with the alternative... which sounds like crossing our fingers and hoping for the best.

It isn’t depressed people that threaten your right to survive. A lot of people who go on shooting sprees can be seen as perfectly normal before something causes them to snap. If we’re going to disarm anyone, the focus should be those with criminal records, especially those with a history of violence. Going after the depressed is just a terrible idea in so many ways. There are already too many stigmas associated with getting treatment for depression, I could never support adding one that’s imposed by the government.

 

[ComicBookNerd]

So, if someone is depressed, we should forcibly institutionalize them? And that's not an example of taking away rights, whereas taking away guns is?

That’s how we do it now, and it isn’t for the long term. Taking away someone’s rights actually is long term.

 

[MaceB]

That’s how we do it now, and it isn’t for the long term. Taking away someone’s rights actually is long term.

This makes little sense brother. Obviously incarcerating someone is an example of taking away their rights... one of which, being their gun by the way. It's not like you can take it in there with you.
And you are just insisting that taking away gun rights would be for life. There's no reason why it would have to be that way. You're making a straw man.

 

[ComicBookNerd]

Personally speaking, I don’t think the government should be stopping people from committing suicide, that’s one of the most difficult laws to enforce. Unless you’re willing to monitor someone 24 hours a day, a person who truly wants to kill themselves will kill themselves, and the only people that can stop them are people they trust.

 

[MaceB]

A lot of people who go on shooting sprees can be seen as perfectly normal before something causes them to snap.

I disagree with this. Like I said, from a psychoanalytic perspective, people are very predictable. In 99% of cases, a wealthy businessman with no criminal record and a family will not all of a sudden snap and go on a killing spree. That doesn't really happen.
It's the abused and the forgotten that we need to look for. It's not like it's a stack of needles... there's specific triggers that we can look for.

I'd be more open to your viewpoint if you were presenting some alternative besides "hope for the best."

 

[ComicBookNerd]

This makes little sense brother. Obviously incarcerating someone is an example of taking away their rights... one of which, being their gun by the way. It's not like you can take it in there with you.
And you are just insisting that taking away gun rights would be for life. There's no reason why it would have to be that way. You're making a straw man.

Take it up with the American Psychology Association, that’s standard protocol when someone says they want to harm themselves or someone else. Also, they aren’t being incarcerated, they’re being treated, and they can’t be held for more than 72 hours without consent.

 

[MaceB]

Take it up with the American Psychology Association, that’s standard protocol when someone says they want to harm themselves or someone else. Also, they aren’t being incarcerated, they’re being treated, and they can’t be held for more than 72 hours without consent.

In which case, we're back to square one, in which even incarceration wouldn't help the situation. No one gets better from depression in 3 days, and they'd obviously still be at risk.

It's just weird that you support taking away someone's right to independence before you take away their right to carry.

 

[ComicBookNerd]

I disagree with this. Like I said, from a psychoanalytic perspective, people are very predictable. In 99% of cases, a wealthy businessman with no criminal record and a family will not all of a sudden snap and go on a killing spree. That doesn't really happen.
It's the abused and the forgotten that we need to look for. It's not like it's a stack of needles... there's specific triggers that we can look for.

I'd be more open to your viewpoint if you were presenting some alternative besides "hope for the best."

Actually it does. All it takes is for a trigger like losing their job or a divorce. Also, 99% of the time people say 99%, they’re making stuff up.

 

[ComicBookNerd]

In which case, we're back to square one, in which even incarceration wouldn't help the situation. No one gets better from depression in 3 days, and they'd obviously still be at risk.

I don’t think it makes a difference either, that’s why I don’t support the government stopping people from committing suicide.

 

[MaceB]

The point I'm making is that a three day stay at a hospital might be helpful yeah, but it most likely won't cure the problem.

Meanwhile, taking away their gun - a much less intrusive measure by any rational person - would significantly improve their chances.

This is not an either-or thing by the way. Doing one is no reason not to the do the other.

 

[ComicBookNerd]

The point I'm making is that a three day stay at a hospital might be helpful yeah, but it most likely won't cure the problem.

Meanwhile, taking away their gun - a much less intrusive measure by any rational person - would significantly improve their chances.

This is not an either-or thing by the way. Doing one is no reason not to the do the other.

Take their guns away & they’ll find another way to kill themselves.

 

[MaceB]

Actually it does. All it takes is for a trigger like losing their job or a divorce. Also, 99% of the time people say 99%, they’re making stuff up.

Again, I strongly disagree. You're going to have to prove this one, if you insist on pushing this. In almost all situations, an employed, educated, well raised individual will not just snap and become a homicidal maniac. Even things like schizophrenia have pretty clear warning signs. You don't just wake up one day and have it.

 

[MaceB]

Take their guns away & they’ll find another way to kill themselves.

Great... it's not as likely to be lethal... and what exactly does that matter?

I can kill a person with a tree branch, does that mean we shouldn't ban AR-15s? Obviously not.

 

[ComicBookNerd]

Again, I strongly disagree. You're going to have to prove this one, if you insist on pushing this. In almost all situations, an employed, educated, well raised individual will not just snap and become a homicidal maniac. Even things like schizophrenia have pretty clear warning signs. You don't just wake up one day and have it.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5095170/Millionaire-businessman-Christopher-Foster-killed-wife-and-daughter-to-avoid-degrading-change-in-lifestyle.html

https://nypost.com/2017/12/03/golden-krust-ceo-killed-himself-over-tax-debt-fears-of-probe/

https://www.insideedition.com/headlines/25180-wealthy-businessman-murders-wife-and-teen-daughter-before-killing-himself