[TITLE]
CMV: I don't believe someone should be disallowed to own a gun due to a mental illness.
WMN: t3_2bclgt_t1_cj4291r
Dialogue: t3_2bclgt
[rap_mein]
I often hear people discussing gun control legislation as "common sense", seemingly as a way of getting out of having to actually explain the logic behind them. To me, the most significant manifestation of this issue is the tremendous amount of support for legislation that would disallow anyone diagnosed with a mental illness to own a firearm. At first thought, such a measure seems to make sense. Surely this legislation would make it such that dangerous mentally ill people cannot obtain firearms, making the world a safer place. But consider this. A man returns from active duty and decides that he wants to purchase a pistol to protect himself. The man is experiencing PTSD symptoms, but knows that if he seeks help he will be barred from purchasing a gun, so what does he do? He hides the symptoms he's experiencing and he buys a gun. So then instead of having an armed mentally ill man who is seeking treatment and whose symptoms are being controlled, you have an armed man who needs medication or at the very least professional help. Legislation like this deters people from seeking help for their mental illnesses and puts guns in the hands of more unstable people. To me, that's why this type of legislation makes no sense. But I'm open to changing that opinion, so please CMV. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*
[hahahahappy]
Making a mental evaluation mandatory for gun ownership would close that loophole.
[rap_mein]
Sure. But you're still preventing some people with well-controlled mental illnesses from owning firearms in doing this.
[Captaincastle]
Because the moment that stops being well controlled, they become an insane risk. Trust me, i worked with /U/gbdallin at USH
[rap_mein]
Well this is something I didn't give much thought to... can you elaborate a bit on this please?
[Captaincastle]
Absolutely. Without getting too specific due to HIPPA, i had a patient for a number of years, she was hyper sexual, and fairly violent. Prone to rages. She was very lucky, got sent to USH before her rages got her sent to prison, responded very well to treatment. with proper medication and coping mechanisms she was quickly sent home. Less than four months later, she couldn't fill her meds for the month due to financial issues, and within a week she was off the deep end and stabbed her mother. It's sad, and it's tragic, but mental illnesses are very dangerous.
[rap_mein]
This is something I totally overlooked; thanks for this. That really is sad. ∆
[Captaincastle]
For some reason I'm not getting credit for the delta :(
[rap_mein]
Yeah, I'm not sure why either...I can try PMing a mod if you'd like.
[Captaincastle]
I'm not losing sleep ha ha
[Captaincastle]
It's one of those things that you never really think about until it happens and then it's a eureka moment. Working there was a fucking trip.
[hahahahappy]
[STA-CITE]> well-controlled mental illnesses [END-CITE]How so? If it's controlled, than why shouldn't the person be able to own a firearm? A doctor's recommendation could resolve that.
[strapt313]
Who gets to set the bar for mental illness? What if, over time, mental illness includes those who don't like/trust the government? It seems that the bar would be lowered every time theres a new congress or election.
[hahahahappy]
[STA-CITE]>Who gets to set the bar for mental illness? [END-CITE]AMA working with NIMH? [STA-CITE]>What if, over time, mental illness includes those who don't like/trust the government? [END-CITE]Not sure how that could be defined as a mental illness. And is pretty much protected under the first. [STA-CITE]>It seems that the bar would be lowered every time theres a new congress or election. [END-CITE]Maybe...or it could move up as well. Democracy is messy.
[EnderESXC]
People with certain mental illnesses should be disallowed because they are a threat to others. Also, people close to the mentally ill would probably know that something wasn't right with them.
[consilience35]
You're argument is predicated on the idea that if the mentally ill were able to own firearms, they wouldn't hide or shy away from their mental illness. That's a big 'if'. Another way to solve this problem is to simply make it so nobody could have weapons. Then the soldier wouldn't have a reward (the gun) for hiding his PTSD, because the reward wouldn't exist.
[pgold167]
Just curious, and not just for OP to answer, but when people talk about "mental illness" with respect to guns, what does that mean? Does that mean schizophrenics? People with PTSD? People who are bipolar? People who saw a counselor because they were sad?
[Captaincastle]
Typically a background check currently looks for involuntary commitment. So if you were committed (usually takes a court order) it's because you were a threat to others or yourself. Just having ptsd or depression or even mild schizophrenia wouldn't necessarily be barred, but we may have to err on the side of caution. For instance, i have fairly serious depression, and minor OCD. I've never been suicidal, and my ocd is minor enough that things don't set me off. I'd anticipate zero resistance if i were to try and buy another gun under the proposed regulations.
[pgold167]
I realize that's the current law now, but I feel like there are people who are trying to take gun rights away from anyone who visited a metal health professional or was prescribed an antidepressant.
[Captaincastle]
I feel like your feels don't actually mean anything. No offense, but unless someone has actually proposed these changes.
[pgold167]
Ok... but it's definitely a fear I have. I've never had any trouble with the law or anything like that. Last year I started having chest pains that got worse and worse. I went to the doctor and he said I was too young to have heart problems and that there was nothing wrong with me. He said I was having panic attacks and I kind of believed it. He put me on zoloft but shit kept getting worse and worse. He then sent me to a counselor for general anxiety disorder or something like that. I got fed up with the whole situation and went to see a new doctor who wasn't a worthless fucking hack. Turns out I have an actual physical problem that is restricting my breathing because of a chest deformity I have, so all the mental health problems I "had" weren't real. I'm just afraid of some laws like the NY SAFE Act that have provisions that allow the government to look into mental health records might be used to strip me of my rights. [Not the most unbiased source](http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/09/a-form-of-gun-confiscation-has-reportedly-begun-in-new-york-state-heres-the-justification-being-used/) but I think this contributes to my "feels."
[antiproton]
[STA-CITE]>But consider this. A man returns from active duty and decides that he wants to purchase a pistol to protect himself. The man is experiencing PTSD symptoms, but knows that if he seeks help he will be barred from purchasing a gun, so what does he do? He hides the symptoms he's experiencing and he buys a gun [END-CITE]That's a terrible argument. Mental illness means a whole list of things and, depending on exactly what type of mental illness, can lead to an otherwise rational individual becoming wildly unpredictable. In the US, gun ownership is, sadly, a right. But a gun is a very destructive item. It is a tremendous amount of power that requires no skill to wield dangerously. It should be difficult to get a gun in general. It should be impossible if you have any of a whole list of disqualifying properties that makes it more likely that you could injure yourself and other. Furthermore, mental instability is often not something that will be identified by the patient who needs treatment. If someone has PTSD, it's probably going to be identified by family and friends long before the patient comes to terms with it. This is not like "I'm not going to pay my parking tickets because that will only draw attention to myself". The threat posed by someone with a significant mental instability owning a gun is far worse than the possibility that someone is actively foregoing treatment for an instability because they wish to own a gun. There are just not that many people who have a choice in the matter. [STA-CITE]>To me, that's why this type of legislation makes no sense. [END-CITE]I don't believe that is true. It makes perfect sense, you just think it might not be effective at preventing gun accidents for this specific circumstance. That's an important distinction. It's not that the idea is flawed universally, but that you have a counter example that you think trumps the intent of the law. If you agree that it's going to be pretty rare for someone to avoid treatment because they desire a gun (assuming they have family who will be facilitating the treatment and, if it's bad enough, potential involuntary hospitalization), and you also agree that preventing gun ownership for the mentally unstable will actually prevent suicides and accidental injuries or deaths, then you pretty much have to accept your view as changed.
[rap_mein]
[STA-CITE]>If you agree that it's going to be pretty rare for someone to avoid treatment because they desire a gun, *and you also agree that preventing gun ownership for the mentally unstable will actually prevent suicides and accidental injuries or deaths*, then you pretty much have to accept your view as changed. [END-CITE]I agree with the first part. I believe that most people, if given the choice between owning a gun and receiving treatment for a mental illness, would choose the latter. Now, about the second point... I think that fewer people with **undiagnosed** mental illnesses who own guns will mean fewer suicides and accidental injuries and deaths, but I believe that legislation barring people with mental illnesses from owning guns will actually increase the number of unstable gun owners. Even if it's not all that significant an increase, this type of legislation would, I feel, harm people seeking help for their mental illnesses and discourage others from doing the same.
[zaron5551]
I think the argument for limiting the ownership of guns among the mentally ill rests more on preventing suicide than it does preventing outwardly violent people from having guns. The soldier in your example is a perfect example of preventing suicide, veterans have a profoundly depressingly high suicide rate, so keeping him/her from owning a gun may save their life. Is there a chance the soldier would lie? Yes, but there a benefits, in the form of extra help, than come only when you are diagnosed that would encourage most to give up their right to own a gun.
[rap_mein]
[STA-CITE]>...but there are benefits, in the form of extra help, that come only when you are diagnosed that would encourage **most** to give up their right to own a gun [END-CITE]You're right. I think that most people, when given the choice between seeking help and owning a gun would choose to give up their right to own a gun in this circumstance. But those "benefits" would still exist without this legislation, they'd just be offered to more people (people who would rather own a gun than seek help if given the choice but who still want help). If someone is uninterested in seeking help, they won't seek help regardless of whether or not this legislation is in place. If someone wants to seek help and doesn't care to own a gun, they will seek help regardless of whether or not this legislation is in place. But if someone wants to seek help but also wants to own a gun, the legislation would make it such that that person would have to choose between the benefits that come with a diagnosis and gun ownership. Since a diagnosis and help from professionals deters people from committing suicide, shouldn't the greatest number of people have access to that help? To me, it makes more sense that legislation would actually increase suicide rates rather than decreasing them.
[gbdallin]
I used to work at the state mental hospital here in Utah. A lot of our "forensics" patients (those that were there for criminal charges) were there for very violent offenses. There were several people who were there for murder. These people had been diagnosed with things like schizophrenia, severe bipolar disorder, and brain trauma. Their offenses were almost never premeditated, which is the big part. The idea that sometimes people just "snap" is actually not that far from the realm of possibility. The main part of this is that these are permanent, debilitating disorders, that can be helped or managed with proper medications. Legislation that bars those with mental illnesses do so to keep those kinds of events from escalating even further. Depression, PTSD, ADHD, are all ailments that do not frequently result in violent acts, and thus, aren't blocked.
[BryanCranston19]
My 'suicide attempt' wasn't premeditated,it was unorthodox.
[BryanCranston19]
I'm managing schizophrenia via excess physical excercise.
[rap_mein]
[STA-CITE]>The main part of this is that [schizophrenia, bipolar disorders, etc.] are permanent, debilitating disorders, that can be helped or managed with proper medications. [END-CITE]Exactly. So why should the government pass legislation which discourages people from seeking them help (and medication) that they need? To me, that's what this type of legislation would do; it would have no effect on people who are already **not** seeking help and medication, and would reduce the number of people with mental illnesses well controlled with medication and other forms of aid by encouraging them to keep their conditions a secret.
[aardvarkyardwork]
Say I have a serious vision problem which I can hide easily enough. I need to drive for work, but if I tell the transport dept of my vision problem, they won't give me a drivers license. Should the govt stop regulating drivers because it might stop them from seeking help for health issues that may affect their driving ability and increase their potential to kill someone? I hope your answer is no. If some one is suffering PTSD, they definitely should not be owning a gun, considering that it is a condition that very commonly includes hallucinations. What if he's in a mall and has flashbacks to being in combat and happens to be carrying his gun? You'll find out all about it on the evening news. Imagine the same scenario, but without the gun. Even if he does start freaking out in a mall, he's be relatively easy for a few people to subdue and one way or other, he's still get the help he needs. Only this way, the potential for innocent bystanders is far less.
[gbdallin]
I think you're misunderstanding how the diagnosis process works. Even if I had been diagnosed privately with my doctor, that information is sealed. HIPA even works against the government. It's when I go and hurt someone, or commit a crime, that it then blocks me. The second issue is that you're arguing that all mentally ill people want to purchase a gun, which is not accurate. Even if that issue were occurring, it would be a very small amount of individuals. The soldier in you example, would probably want to seek treatment and try and get rid of his PTSD more than he would want to go buy a shiny new gun. Mental illness effects a person in every aspect of their life. Work suffers, home suffers, nothing is normal anymore. Most of those who suffer from these want to be normal again, above anything else. Any person who is 21 or older knows if they have a mental illness. If they are dangerous, they also know, and so do we.
[rap_mein]
Well, thanks. I don't know why but I forgot about the sealing of records and confidentiality for a minute. So I guess you've changed my view. ∆
[DeltaBot]
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/gbdallin. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/gbdallin)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)]
[gbdallin]
Thank you, as well. Mental health is definitely a reality that needs to be brought to the attention of everyone. And asking questions like you did helped continue that discussion.