So one of the few areas of agreement among both the left and the right is that people with a mental illness, or a history of mental illness, should not be allowed to own guns. I was wondering what people's opinions are on how this would actually be enforced, and who you think should not be able to own a gun. If somebody voluntarily admits themselves to a mental institution for something like depression or alcoholism, should the never be allowed to own a gun again? Would you have rules, such as you can't have been institutionalized within the last 3 years or 5 years, or whatever? Who would have the power to decide if somebody is mentally unstable enough to either not own a gun now, or never own a gun in the future? I'm kind of torn on this issue, because I think there are some important points to consider before simply saying "people with mental illness shouldn't have guns". One issue that I have with this is that, by banning all people who have been institutionalized from getting a gun, it may discourage people from getting help that they need to simply because they may want to own a gun at some point in the future. I also get nervous about who it is that defines and determines who shouldn't own a gun and for what mental illnesses. Leaving the decision up to the government seems like a very slippery slope into political persecutions (as a libertarian, I have been called psychotic for what I think, what if the government bans libertarians from owning guns because they think they are crazy, or they think libertarians are a direct threat to their power?). Similarly, we could slide in the same way to religious persecution. For example, I am an atheist, and I think that anybody who believes in the literal story of Christ or believes that water and wine literally turn into the blood of Christ in their body is freaking crazy. Should those people be allowed to own a gun? I would say yes, even though I see them as crazy, but I don't know if the government will always see it that way (they could also say I'm crazy for NOT believing in God). Aside from the government, you could give medical doctors the power to ban people from owning guns, but you also run into the same issues as above. If I say that I don't feel very happy to my doctor, he could say I'm too depressed to own a gun because maybe he or she is a socialist and thinks my political views are crazy. That being said, I would trust doctors a lot more, and I think that giving them that power wouldn't be too bad, as long as you could appeal the decision in a court, or get a second opinion from a different doctor. Under the current law in most states, including my state (WA), if you are COMMITTED to a mental institution, you can't get a concealed weapons permit, and often you can't get a gun at all. However, the definition of committed is "a formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority" meaning that people who voluntarily go to a mental hospital may still own a gun. Do you think that we should either redefine committed or amend the law to include those who voluntarily commit themselves to a mental institution? If we do redefine it, or amend it, what sorts of mental illnesses should be included to be banned from possessing a firearm? One thing that concerns me is that people sometimes go to mental hospitals because they are depressed for one reason or another, at some point in their life, should we really say that these people can never own a firearm again because they had a rough time in their life? I've also considered making medication either a condition or disqualifies for owning a firearm, but you run into the issue that people may either refuse to take medication they need (if it disqualifies a person), or that ensuring people continue taking medicine is simply unenforceable, and also has the potential to be abused by the government or drug companies. Anyways, those are my thoughts. My opinion is that people voluntarily committed to mental institutions, under certain conditions, should be allowed to own a firearm if they have not been in a mental institution within the last 3 years (for any reason), and I MIGHT add that they need to be cleared by a psychiatrist, where the individual would get to choose the psychiatrist, who must be a licensed doctor.
The "committed" ban is the same in Alabama. It is hard to argue with, still you wonder how much good it really does. You can make the argument that someone who WAS committed and it considered cured now is a better person to give a permit to that someone who no psychiatrist has ever checked out>>>>?? I know people who have guns that SHOULD be committed.
only if they are not living own their own (do not have a caretaker, imprisoned, ect...)... like all Americans they have their 2nd amendment right even though some republicans and liberals disagree and want to turn owning a gun into a privilege rather than a right.... everyone has the right to protect their homes and families.. everyone.... this is America .
Depends on the mental illness. Not all mental illnesses make you violent. In fact, a person with a mental illness is more likely to be a victim of violence than commit violence.
That makes sense, and I completely agree. However, what mental illnesses SHOULD have guns regulated? Or do you think that it's a useless attempt to control guns that we should just forget about, and accept the dangers associated with it? I feel like it would be very difficult to make a law that would actually be effective in keeping guns out of people's hands who have a "violent mental illness" because that is just too vague, and would be difficult to define or enforce. Who would decide if somebody has a "violent mental illness" vs. a "nonviolent mental illness"?
That's a tough one, because being OCD doesn't make you violent, but being depressed can make you shoot yourself. But all said and done...outlawing guns completely won't stop anyone from getting one.
The federal guideline is that people involuntarily committed to a mental instituion are not allowed guns .That seems reasonable to me.
