Trump angling to ban those with mental illness from owning guns

[sig shooter]

Trump is 'open' to banning all guns for some people

This is a bit concerning, hopefully he’s just ignorant to the fact that those adjudicated mentally defective, or committed to a mental institution, are already PP.

 

[evalance]

time 2 bury them

 

[radioman]

How does he determine mental illness?
If you see a therapist?
Or if you’ve been committed?
This could be dangerous!

 

[sig shooter]

How does he determine mental illness?
If you see a therapist?
Or if you’ve been committed?
This could be dangerous!

My point exactly, although trump has said “he’s open” to many things, and nothing materialized. We could live with “fix nics” and/or better reporting of PP med records to the FBI. However, this seems like he wants to make a whole new class of PP!

 

[GM-GUY]

time 2 bury them

Time to dig them up and be ready to employ them.

 

[Jason Flare]

Psychologists and Psychologists are going to be like Maytag repairmen.

 

[Bonesinium]

Using mental health to prohibit people from possessing firearms is nothing less than a political tool to prevent people with a different political ideology from having guns.

 

[sig shooter]

Using mental health to prohibit people from possessing firearms is nothing less than a political tool to prevent people with a different political ideology from having guns.

EX: The soviet gulag

 

[MachineHead]

Right at the bottom:

Many Democrats argue that both policies supported by Trump would not go nearly far enough to restrict access to guns.

They want it all.

 

[Boris]

EX: The soviet gulag

Soviet Union during Andropov times actively used psychiatric clinics to involuntary commit dissidents and branded them as mentally defective ...

 

[sig shooter]

If its restricted just to firearms I agree

We have a serious problem in the US as do many countries with people who are a direct threat to others

Personally I think there are a significant number of people who should not be loose on the streets at all BUT it needs to be a 0 or 1 thing AND it needs to involved due process

The problem is how do you set a objective standard to determine who is dangerous and who is not? The current law sets an objective standard of a commitment to a mental institution and/or adjudication of being mentally defective. Would you support banning firearms ownership because a patient who just lost his wife to cancer, by virtue of him seeing an outpatient therapist for depression?

 

[Bonesinium]

We have a serious problem in the US as do many countries with people who are a direct threat to others

Being a direct threat is unrelated to restrictions based on mental health.

 

[sig shooter]

You want to go back and re-read my post?

Didnt say banning firearms per se.....said locking up people who are an overt threat to everyone else and explicitly said it needs to involved due process......

Cant argue that there are not people who have demonstrated they have no business being free

Hell...this turd in Fla had popo at his house 39 times

Was kicked out of school

FBI had two reports of overt threats.....

If he wasnt the poster child for my argument what is?

There also needs to be a process for returning people to public life complete with full rights

Misunderstood what you were saying. We had a place for those who couldn’t care for themselves with chronic mental illness: state hospitals. However, funding was cut and most are closed now. It’s mostly community based group homes that house those patients.

I’m not really sure that any amount of measures would have stopped the sociopath in Florida, hard to believe the police made contact with him numerous times, and didn’t find a reason to take action. I think the FBI should have at least stopped by to say hello. Furthermore, this guy wasent mentally ill imo, he was a full blown sociopath, which is a personality disorder that has no cure, pure evil.

 

[sig shooter]

Being a direct threat is unrelated to restrictions based on mental health.

Precisely

 

[AverageJoe]

Troubling, considering mental illness is 100% subjective. There are no lab tests to confirm or deny a mental illness diagnoses, it merely depends on a persons opinion. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where this could lead.

 

[ProGun]

Using mental health to prohibit people from possessing firearms is nothing less than a political tool to prevent people with a different political ideology from having guns.

And will undoubtedly stop people from getting help when they may need it. Plenty of unintended consequences if they go that route.

 

[MGnoob]

Does anyone else see the issue of labeling so many people as mentally defective?
It most certainly wont stop them from killing with a car, bomb or gun.
Then the ones that do kill people, can't go to jail or be put to death because they have been adjucated mentally ill.

If im ever included with the metally ill atleast I'll never have to wear pants again.

 

[Picton]

Troubling, considering mental illness is 100% subjective. There are no lab tests to confirm or deny a mental illness diagnoses, it merely depends on a persons opinion. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where this could lead.

Well, it’s a LITTLE more objective than you’re making it sound. And plenty of lab tests yield false positives, too. When it comes down to it, most medicine is as much art as science.

And that’s the problem. Show me ANY 100% reliable way to predict violent behavior, and keeping guns from those folks seems like a no-brainer. But at that point, why not just precrime them and throw them in jail before they get a chance to hurt anyone? Hell, why not just euthanize them?

You see the ethical problems. So it’s good, in a way, that it’s a moot point. Because there’s no 100% reliable way to predict violent behavior. Until there is, any proposal like Trump’s is an infringement.

 

[SpaceCritter]

And will undoubtedly stop people from getting help when they may need it. Plenty of unintended consequences if they go that route.

What makes you thinks those consequences are unintended? Any more than the hyping these incidents while doing everything remotely possible to keep the victims disarmed, doing everything remotely possible to disarm some more.

 

[drgrant]

And will undoubtedly stop people from getting help when they may need it. Plenty of unintended consequences if they go that route.

Outside of the clear potential abuse vector that Bonsinium speaks of, this is the 2nd most dangerous thing- because just what we need is a bunch of people with self admitted mental health problems to intentionally avoid seeking any type of treatment.

-Mike

 

[Dadstoys]

Come on Donald , do you really want to leave a tool just laying there after your gone that will be used to screw over people who voted for you?
God, I wish we had someone at the NRA other than that moron Lapierre to straighten him out on this shit.
10 minutes after the Dem get control again everyone who voted republican will be judged mentally defective and stripped of their rights.

 

[Dadstoys]

Outside of the clear potential abuse vector that Bonsinium speaks of, this is the 2nd most dangerous thing- because just what we need is a bunch of people with self admitted mental health problems to intentionally avoid seeking any type of treatment.

-Mike

Some of them do now.
It will just get worst.

 

[HuntMaine]

IMHO this needs to be defined clearly. It should go beyond just people who have been committed because there are a lot of folks who are mentally ill that have never been committed but maybe have shown it in other ways. Take the kid in Florida. Had the data from the local police, school and maybe this kids doctor had been collected it should have bee clear he was a danger. Will this make some not seek help, yes. Could it be abused if not defined correctly, yes. So the key will be how gun owners and our respective organizations deal with this and burying our heads is not an option.

 

[Kurtz]

Troubling, considering mental illness is 100% subjective. There are no lab tests to confirm or deny a mental illness diagnoses, it merely depends on a persons opinion. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where this could lead.

Several thousands of people have severe disturbances in thought and/or behavior. It's not subjective when someones brain has actual problems, imbalances..

 

[Picton]

IMHO this needs to be defined clearly. It should go beyond just people who have been committed because there are a lot of folks who are mentally ill that have never been committed but maybe have shown it in other ways. Take the kid in Florida. Had the data from the local police, school and maybe this kids doctor had been collected it should have bee clear he was a danger. Will this make some not seek help, yes. Could it be abused if not defined correctly, yes. So the key will be how gun owners and our respective organizations deal with this and burying our heads is not an option.

I'll bite. Because the devil’s in the details.

I’m not sure I disagree with you, but just for fun, go ahead and define it clearly. Tell us precisely what lines are acceptable, mental health wise, for infringement. Then, sit back and watch as your reasonable suggestions get shat on by nearly everyone here. Because one man’s “reasonable limits” is another man’s “unconstitutional infringement.”

I’m not trying to be a jerk; I’m just saying the same thing I tell my students. “Do something!” sounds great, but real solutions requiring community buy-in? That’s hard.

 

[sig shooter]

IMHO this needs to be defined clearly. It should go beyond just people who have been committed because there are a lot of folks who are mentally ill that have never been committed but maybe have shown it in other ways. Take the kid in Florida. Had the data from the local police, school and maybe this kids doctor had been collected it should have bee clear he was a danger. Will this make some not seek help, yes. Could it be abused if not defined correctly, yes. So the key will be how gun owners and our respective organizations deal with this and burying our heads is not an option.

It needs to contain due process! This is a backdoor gun grab

 

[HuntMaine]

I'll bite. Because the devil’s in the details.

I’m not sure I disagree with you, but just for fun, go ahead and define it clearly. Tell us precisely what lines are acceptable, mental health wise, for infringement. Then, sit back and watch as your reasonable suggestions get shat on by nearly everyone here. Because one man’s “reasonable limits” is another man’s “unconstitutional infringement.”

I’m not trying to be a jerk; I’m just saying the same thing I tell my students. “Do something!” sounds great, but real solutions requiring community buy-in? That’s hard.

That's why I was saying it needs to be clearly defined. Heck I'm not sure what the exact guideline is but I run into unstable and mentally ill people in portland and I'm not sure many of them were committed but I sure in hell don't think their stable enough to possess a firearm. My guess is that there are some basic guidelines that can be developed and maybe there is a some appeals process for those who feel they are being denied a license unfairly

 

[HuntMaine]

It needs to contain due process! This is a backdoor gun grab

I agree any route whether it be mental health or any other reason sides to deny the right to firearms should have a way to challenge the decision and provide due process

 

[amm5061]

Trump is 'open' to banning all guns for some people

This is a bit concerning, hopefully he’s just ignorant to the fact that those adjudicated mentally defective, or committed to a mental institution, are already PP.

I'm hoping that he's aiming to ban guns for any self-professed liberal.

 

[drgrant]

I'll bite. Because the devil’s in the details.

I’m not sure I disagree with you, but just for fun, go ahead and define it clearly. Tell us precisely what lines are acceptable, mental health wise, for infringement. Then, sit back and watch as your reasonable suggestions get shat on by nearly everyone here. Because one man’s “reasonable limits” is another man’s “unconstitutional infringement.”

I’m not trying to be a jerk; I’m just saying the same thing I tell my students. “Do something!” sounds great, but real solutions requiring community buy-in? That’s hard.

I agree, but I also think the typical danger is when the door is open to legislation the danger isn't that moderate solutions will be proposed as hard coded limits, with build in safeguards against probable vectors
of abuse- the danger is that nebulous things get put into play (for example, like this poorly set up "ERPO!" thing that Linstain wants, that is basically throwing bologna at the wall ) like for instance- given the way that PP status evolves in the current MH system- one has to wonder whether the fact that certain people are "skating" is because of institutional sloth, laze, or what have you. Like for example- are the people in the system where doctors have said "well, this guy should probably be adjudicated mentally defective, but that entire process is too much of a pain in the ass, so we won't even bother with that, yet, until something bad happens" etc. I think some investigation needs to be done to see what the realities of the current system are like.

-Mike