88
User voted No.
8 votes
Jun 7, 2015

No!

Mental illness is far too broad of a term. There is a wide variety of mental illnesses, and with many of those, people suffering from those symptoms are no threat to others. It is unfair to judge such a wide range of people based on a few, especially when most people have very little understanding of mental illness. It's like saying every black person is prone to commit crime. How about some examples?

Should someone with OCD be prevented from owning a gun?
When their mental illness causes them to count their steps and wash their hands three times? Does that make them a threat?

What about someone with social anxiety?
Should someone who is unable to be out in a crowd be prevented from owning a gun? Should the fact they can't shop in a mall or crowded store, that they can't go to a ball game or theater on opening day mean they don't deserve to have a gun?

How about someone with an eating disorder? Or sexual dysfunction? What about if they have their problem under control with medication? Should a diagnosis prevent them from being able to protect themselves?
 
 
Last one. (Possibly most important one)
What about someone who has mental illness as a result of abuse, and the reason they want a gun is because they are scared to death or what will happen if their abuser finds them again? Should someone be prevented from owning a gun because of what someone did to them, someone they may need to protect themselves from in the future?
 
 
There has been a great deal of research showing how abuse, especially child abuse, can prime the brain for mental illness later in life, most notably anxiety disorders and depression. Dissociation, borderline personality disorder, antisocial personality disorder, eating disorders and more can all be caused partially or entirely by abuse and not one of them makes a person a danger to others.

Reply to this opinion
subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
User voted Yes.
main reply
1 vote,
Nov 9, 2015

The question didn't ask "do you support bans on guns for the mentally ill?" It said "do you support laws preventing people with mental illness from purchasing guns?" The implication of legislation in the question indicates that it wouldn't be a broad application. Even broadly written hypothetical laws in this situation would obviously have a reasonable degree of specificity. If you say "no" to a hypothetical set of laws because of an assumption that it would include language that is obviously ridiculously broad, then, reasonably, you can never support any hypothetical set of laws.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
User voted No.
linked reply
1 vote,
Nov 21, 2015

You obviously have little understanding of the problem in general. People very frequently speak of mental illness is ridiculously broad terms, and mental illness is often written about the same way. It's far from impossible that laws of such a nature would lack the kind of specificity necessary to make it fair and agreeable.

In fact, how people tend to act about mental illness has reached a point where people will deny the possibility they have a potentially serious problem, and thus never get treatment, simply because of the way the media and general public acts and talks about mental illness.

Example: If I were to mention knowing people with schizophrenia, many people would immediately assume that whoever I'm talking about must be a danger to others. Heck, a lot of people wouldn't even actually know what it is. It shocks me how many people mistake schizophrenia for dis-associative identity disorder (multiple personality disorder). And very, very few people with either of those mental illnesses are actually in any way a threat to others. One of the people I know with schizophrenia has it manifest in hyper-religious behavior. Some of her symptoms? She hears the 'voice of God' (and occasionally others); she thinks that everything written in the bible must be true. This includes the Earth being flat. No evidence to the contrary will ever convince her.

Schizophrenia, which many people assume makes people dangerous, is primarily defined by a lack of grasp on reality. The most common symptom is hallucinations, with auditory hallucinations by far being the most common. Does hearing the voice of God, thinking the world is flat, that vaccinations are dangerous, and similar things mean this person is likely to hurt someone? No. The closest thing she has to dangerous behavior is trying to prevent her son from getting vaccinations and self medicating with alcohol (but never driving if she's had even a sip).

Aside from that, frequently when someone is diagnosed as being a threat to others due to mental illness, they are placed in special care, be it with home aid or in a hospital. The people who do have a mental illness that makes them a threat and aren't in special care are primarily those that are un-diagnosed, and lacking a diagnosis means the law wouldn't affect them anyway.

So aside from making it difficult for people diagnosed with greatly misunderstood illnesses to protect themselves, how much good would such a law do?

Very little gun violence has ever been tied to mental illness, and even less frequently has it been tied to previously diagnosed and treated mental illness. And what of the few cases of gun violence involving people actually having a diagnosis? Quite a few of them are abuse victims defending themselves. The stories of abuse victims don't always say anything about mental illness... but dig a little deeper and a great many of them were currently getting treatment.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted Yes.
0 votes,
Nov 21, 2015

You make a good point, so I concede. But let me pose to you a revised version of the question: Do you support laws to prevent people with mental illness that, in the view of mental professionals, have potentially violent tendencies from purchasing guns? This hypothetical law would restrict an individual who is mentally ill from buying guns if a healthcare professional deems them to have violent tendencies, but would not pose any restrictions if a healthcare professional has not been consulted, or if the healthcare professional believes there is no reason to enforce any restrictions. Therefore, these restrictions would only apply to those who've been explicitly identified as potentially violent. It would not apply to the vast majority of the mentally ill who pose no danger to themselves or others. and it would not have a "guilty before proven innocent" attitude towards those who have not undergone treatment. In my view, this solves for all problems above. The vast majority of the mentally ill could still purchase weapons for self-defense purposes, and would only restrict a small number of people who have been proven to be a possible threat, and obviously should not be allowed to own a deadly weapon. So it would affect a very small group of people, as you point out. Those who are both undergoing treatment and are potentially violent. Would you support this hypothetical law, and if not, what would have to change for you to support it?

Keep in mind that when I discuss this hypothetical, it is in a sort of "perfect world" scenario. Disregard passage, cost, and implementation; I just want to know what you think of the underlying idea.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted No.
0 votes,
Nov 25, 2015

The underlying idea isn't necessarily bad. If it was tied to a professional declaring a specific individual a threat, that would be completely understandable. The problem lies in how such a law would likely be implemented. People would be more inclined to throw out a list of general diagnoses as being who to restrict. What may be seen as the 'easier' way, rather than the right way.

If such a law were enacted, I would not be surprised if they tried putting 'Bipolar Disorder', which I have, on a list of illnesses that mean someone should not be allowed a gun. Because some bipolars, when untreated, have suicidal tendencies. And there is one rare variation on it that can include aggressive tendencies. But that variation is the exception to the rule, and most who are diagnosed are under sufficient treatment to no longer have suicidal tendencies.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted Yes.
0 votes,
Nov 29, 2015

So, now I'm just curious, do you think such a law could be effectively implemented now or in the future, or will there always be a significant danger of this "easier way rather than the right way" taking effect?

subscribe
Challenge someone to answer this opinion:
Invite an OpiWiki user:
OR
Invite your friend via email:
OR
Share it: