Author Topic: "Mental Illness" (Read 843 times)

BrianMcCandliss · « **on:** December 08, 2005, 08:52:34 PM »

A woman was criminally attacked, and wants to get a handgun permit to avoid a repeat-incident; however, she also suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the attack, and one of the permit-requirements is that the person doesn't have any "diagnosed mental illness," regardless of whether they're an increased threat to themselves or others.

This seems like the statute is pandering to public paranoia over a stigma, and therefore they're depriving such persons of equal protection under the law. Someone asked me if there was any way to remedy this issue?

Dusty Miller · « **Reply #1 on:** December 08, 2005, 10:26:44 PM »

There's no way. Studpidity abounds and we are helpless to stop it.

Redhawk1 · « **Reply #2 on:** December 09, 2005, 01:18:51 AM »

Give it to one person with a mental illness and you will have thousands of wackos running around with guns. We already have enough crime with the criminals which don't play by our rules. :evil:

Mikey · « **Reply #3 on:** December 09, 2005, 03:35:30 AM »

Brian: in New York, if a psychiatrist has diagnosed you (and please note that it must be an MD Psychiatrist, not some Master's level or ph.d. type) with a mental illness and you want to own a handgun for your own protection, that psychiatrist must provide documentation that you no longer suffer from the illness.

PSTD is one of those BS diagnoses that can dang well stick with you forever, and stick you forever, if you don't get some level headed shrink to provide that you no longer suffer from the illness and that it is not likely to return.

Also, the shrink needs to document that the 'disorder', as it is not a mental illness, was transitory and the result of being victimized, and that it is not a permanent infliction or disability. Please understand that PSTD is nto a permanent mental illness, like schitzophrenia or a manic depressive disorder. PSTD can be effectively resolved. Again, PSTD is not a mental illness, it is a temporary or transitory disorder. The victim may exhibit symptoms - such as being overly cautious, avoidance of certain types of locations, changes in behavior designed to be more protective, but these are only symptoms and many butthole shrinks think these indicate an inappropriate response to being victimized, while never having been there themselves.

This woman needs to see a new shrink or the one who diagnosed her and get that shrink's new report that she no longer suffers from this illness and is not a danger to society or the community and that she should be able to avail herself of the means to individual and personal protection.

Now, if the shrink - and please recall that it must be a shrink- won't do that, get a 2nd opinion because the first guy is obviously a butthead. If it is a woman shrink and she doesn't think her client should own a handgun, go to a male shrink who is a shooter or a bit more cognizant of the need for self defense.

In other words, there is more than one way to rememdy this situation. If nothing else, find out who the local cop shrink is - they handle shooting situations and return cops to duty, armed. If a cop shooting doesn't result is PSTD then someone is bs-ing a lot of people. This victimized woman should be allowed to own the means to self defense. HTH and let us know what happens. Mikey.

PaulS · « **Reply #4 on:** December 09, 2005, 07:06:03 PM »

I can't speak to the law in NY but in Washington you have to ajudicated mentally ill - there has to be a hearing and the judge has to rule that you are mentally ill to the point where you are a clear and present danger to yourself or society. It takes more than some shrink with a diploma (PhD always has an MD) to keep you from having a gun.

BAGTIC · « **Reply #5 on:** December 17, 2005, 03:45:39 PM »

Redhawk,

The vast majority of firearm crimes are committed by people who are legally sane. The mentally ill represent a very small percentage. Compared to the number of crimes committed by people who are drinking, etc it is insignificant. If we agree to disarm people just because they are mentally ill we may as well disarm everyone who drinks. In many countries like the Soviet Union 'mental illness' illness has long been used as a pretext to deny people thei civil rights. Such determinations should be based solely on criminal convictions.

Prohibiting a 'mentally ill' peson from legally possessing firearms will no more prevent them from getting guns than outlawing dugs prevents drug use, or laws prohibiting homicide, rape, or bank robbery prevents those crimes. I have known many people whose driving permits were suspended or evoked. I do not know a single one that did not continue to drive at least occasionally.

The only way to stop them, any of them, is to lock them up. I don't believe we want to do that nor do I think we can afford it.

Once the door is open even a crack the antigunners will use it to disarm everyone. This year California ruled a person being sued for divorce can not own firearms. I asked my local dealer if that was person being sued for divorce based on the grounds of abuse. He said no. I asked if a person could not ship his guns out of state or place them in a bonded warehouse until after the case was ahudicated. I was told no. The reason I asked was because a man at the counter was selling his entire collects (20+) guns to a friend for one dollar hoping his friend would sell them back to him after the legal proceedings. Of course he had to pay the expensive transfer/registration fee on every gun and would have to pay again when (if?) his friend sold them back.

myronman3 · « **Reply #6 on:** December 17, 2005, 04:37:12 PM »

Quote

This year California ruled a person being sued for divorce can not own firearms.

if true, that is a outrage. and if that is true (even if it isnt), i am damn glad i dont live in california. and if i did live there, i would be headed elsewhere.

oso45-70 · « **Reply #7 on:** December 17, 2005, 05:10:41 PM »

Quote from: myronman3

Quote
This year California ruled a person being sued for divorce can not own firearms.

if true, that is a outrage. and if that is true (even if it isn't), i am damn glad i don't live in california. and if i did live there, i would be headed elsewhere.

Myronman3

Strange this dose not surprise me, In fact nothing that happens in Kalifornia surprises me. I left there in 1957 after a short stay and have never been back and have no desire to go back,,, Have a good day.......Joe......

jro45 · « **Reply #8 on:** December 18, 2005, 01:52:47 AM »

That is terrible what they do if getting a devorce.

Redhawk1 · « **Reply #9 on:** December 18, 2005, 02:45:34 AM »

Quote from: BAGTIC

Redhawk,

The vast majority of firearm crimes are committed by people who are legally sane. The mentally ill represent a very small percentage. Compared to the number of crimes committed by people who are drinking, etc it is insignificant. If we agree to disarm people just because they are mentally ill we may as well disarm everyone who drinks. In many countries like the Soviet Union 'mental illness' illness has long been used as a pretext to deny people thei civil rights. Such determinations should be based solely on criminal convictions.

Prohibiting a 'mentally ill' peson from legally possessing firearms will no more prevent them from getting guns than outlawing dugs prevents drug use, or laws prohibiting homicide, rape, or bank robbery prevents those crimes. I have known many people whose driving permits were suspended or evoked. I do not know a single one that did not continue to drive at least occasionally.

The only way to stop them, any of them, is to lock them up. I don't believe we want to do that nor do I think we can afford it.

Once the door is open even a crack the antigunners will use it to disarm everyone. This year California ruled a person being sued for divorce can not own firearms. I asked my local dealer if that was person being sued for divorce based on the grounds of abuse. He said no. I asked if a person could not ship his guns out of state or place them in a bonded warehouse until after the case was ahudicated. I was told no. The reason I asked was because a man at the counter was selling his entire collects (20+) guns to a friend for one dollar hoping his friend would sell them back to him after the legal proceedings. Of course he had to pay the expensive transfer/registration fee on every gun and would have to pay again when (if?) his friend sold them back.

Do you truly believe what you say?? People with mental illness do not think rationally and make poor decisions and are incapable of reality in some cases. You cannot in any way compare a criminal to and mentally ill person, and to do so is just plain ludacris. :?

Now about California, that is the dumbest thing I heard. I would never live there and wish it would fall into the sea with all them dumb Law makers. :evil: :twisted:

myronman3 · « **Reply #10 on:** December 18, 2005, 03:34:50 AM »

given my current situation, if i lived there (again, if it is true) then i would be having my guns taken. and for what? no way i would live there. i would even have to cut and run if that kind of bull was put into place here where i live, even if that meant quiting my job and selling the house.
yikes!