Swipe to go to another post.
Mentally unstable people will always be on the edge of going nuts at any time. They should never never be allowed to own guns. Make it the same as a drivers license at least some people are not allowed due to medical or mental reasons to drive. A car is a dangerous thing in the wrong hands, so is a gun.
That sounds reasonable, but terms like "mentally unstable" and "going nuts" are not very helpful.
Even if we say people with a mental illness, that still includes a lot of harmless, good people - like Princess Diana, Maria Osmomd, and Karen Carpenter.
(I don't know if these people are/were actually good, but you know what I mean).
When it comes to saying we need to restrict people with mental illness/disorders from own guns, that’s a pretty broad brush.
According to the American Psychiatric association, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), the DSM lists approximately 297 disorders. Here are only a few.
Reactive Attachment Disorder
Antisocial Personality Disorder
Premature (Early) ****
And the list goes on and on. Before people jump on the bandwagon of saying people with a mental disorder shouldn’t be allowed to own a gun, shouldn’t they define “what” severe mental disorders should disqualify a person? Probably only the ones that a reasonable person would agree constitutes a real threat to others.
I have to agree with you Jim. There are any number of mental illnesses that don't lead to that person harming others. But, at this point, there are no mental illnesses that would bar someone from gun ownership. Of course, I'm sure there are more than a few people walking around with the mental illnesses we agree upon who haven't been diagnosed, so they would probably slip through the cracks.
Linn, Did you know that if a person in Colorado is in a treatment program for PTSD or ANY other mental disorder, they cannot buy or own a gun? The new law creates a judicial process wherein a person may petition for relief from federal firearms prohibitions resulting from an adjudication as a “mental defective”. Colorado slipped through a lot of gun laws in 2013.
No, I didn't know that. Are you saying that was a bad law? I would think that kind of law is something that would be in the best interests of the public. I'm not saying that everyone with PTSD is a killer when they get home, but they can be unstable, especially if that PTSD is the result of military service in a war zone. I am not at all anti-military, but you have to realize that after a tour or two in the Middle East, far too many troops have issues adjusting to live back home.
I think it's a bad law because there is no discriminator to determine if a person just needs help or is a true threat. Laws like this discourage some people from getting help, even though they are no threat. I've had multiple tours to the region and knew some kids that had a tough time and just wanted some counseling to help them deal with what they went through. Now they are labeled as mentally ill. (Which follows them for life) Do you realize that a person going through grief counseling for the death of a child could also fall into this category? When a law is too generalized, it could include as many people as the government wanted to label as mentally defective.
Just a thought Linn.
I so understand that and I am sympathetic. I also know troopers who have not sought help because they feel it will damage their military careers. This should not be. Perhaps the answer is to have a panel make those determinations not just one doctor. There is no sure way to decide who is and who isn't a threat to society - unfortunately. You just do the best you can to mitigate the damages without harming the majority.
These have been good conversations today Linn.
Yes, Jim, they have been and I always appreciate a good, cogent, civil argument representing the other side of my own opinions. Thank you. :)
My pleasure... Thank you. I was cut short online today by he wife who wanted me to go with her, shopping, so I did the well rehearsed head nod.
Smart choice. :) If mama isn't happy, no one's happy.
If the Republicans may go too far in one direction, it can reasonably be argued that the Democrats go too far in the other. This often results in laws that, while perhaps well-intentioned, are not based even within said intentions. That is precisely what occurred with Obama's gun restrictions for those with mental-illnesses and healthcare.
The real issue, and the one to which neither Republicans nor Democrats, whether in office or among the electorate, is willing to tackle, is common-sense legislation that reflects the wishes of the people and does not overstep governmental authority. Noooo... it's not about what is best for we, the people, it's all and always about racking up another "win" for the party. SMH
And for the record, that second paragraph applies to every political discussion, not just these two issues in particular.
You've been smokin those damn left-handed cigarettes again.
Personally, I think it's time that some very important social issues became referendums on the ballot. It's time the voters had an actually say in what becomes law. I know that the whole idea is to elect officials to represent us, but they aren't doing that and it's time that we had a more direct input as to what we want.
In 2013, the Colorado legislature slipped the bill by that I cited above. The citizens were pissed off. There was a famous gun magazine manufacturer here that pulled up stakes and moved there entire company to another state.
I can understand why the citizens were not happy, but why would the magazine company move?
Some of their their products were outlawed in Colorado.
Americans went insane when they voted for Chump. Possibly the lowest point in America's political history. A total embarrassment for the entire world.
Oh, Hell no.
For help please contact us here.
You're using the touch version of Amirite, you can switch to the full site.
© amirite.com 2017. Icons by DryIcons.