FBI has more than doubled the number of people nationwide who are prohibited from buying guns because of mental health problems.
Okay - let’s think about this for a second.
If these people cannot be trusted with a firearm - then, why are they out walking around? Surely it follows they should not be allowed in public.
Further, they have undoubtedly had their names stricken from voter rolls, yes? For this is a much more dangerous activity.
And, nobody at the DOT is going to let them drive a car, obviously.
2007-12-02 07:05:31 · 9 answers · asked by Bubba 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
For Ryan below:
It was in the LA Times.
2007-12-02 07:19:03 · update #1
Chi Bro Below:
Agreed.
2007-12-02 07:23:31 · update #2
Hey Bubba...
This makes sense due to the shooting rampage at the VA or West VA college recently. I think the other reasons you cite are unrelated.
Historically people do not associate a vehicle with a means to go on a killing rampage. Denying mentally questionable people a weapon is more of a public safety issue in my view.
2007-12-02 07:10:31 · answer #1 · answered by Chi Guy 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I have had a lot of experience with the mentally ill and I can tell you, they should NOT have access to guns. Not only is their behavior erratic even under meds, but their taking of the meds that keep them somewhat under control is exceptionally erratic.
If you knew all the side effects inherent to psychotropic drugs, you would know why they are so prone to going off them. Because of the myriad of negative effects, many tell themselves that they will go off for a day, a week, a month, but almost always, by that time, they are too delusional to comprehend that they need to go back on them.
This is the most dangerous time for mentally ill patients and oftentimes, there is no one around to amend the situation due to the fact that so many have been abandoned by their families and the system is far to taxed to handle the burden of chasing them down.
I am an advocate of re-opening 'asylums.' Letting these patients go about their lives unaided is exceptionally inhumane and yes, very perilous to others.
The only system we currently have to deal with the vast majority of severely mentally ill patients once they have exhibited aggression is the penal system, where they are often exploited and abused by real criminals. Put a gun in the hands of these people and it is almost certain they will end up there.
I have a lot of compassion for those who suffer from these sorts of illnesses, but maintaining their gun rights is not something I would ever want to burden them with.
2007-12-03 02:12:24 · answer #2 · answered by wider scope 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It takes a certain level of competence to safely own a gun, drive a private car, drive a commercial truck, fly a jet, do brain surgery, operate a day-care center, or captain a nuclear sub. These are not necessary mutually inclusive.
A turn of the century history book of mine says that the right to keep and bear arms means that "a gentleman cannot be deprived of the right to carry a sidearm." The definition of "gentleman" may have changed (to include "ladies" for example), but many nations require a doctor's note and completion of a safety/marksman training course to own a gun. As long as the government doesn't get to choose the doctor, and the NRA can provide the course, I have no problem with that.
2007-12-02 15:20:22 · answer #3 · answered by BruceN 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It does not follow that because someone does not need institutionalization they should be allowed to own a gun. We don't have enough mental health facilities to keep everyone who is mentally unstable inside. And for many people with mental illness, the best thing for them is to be home with family.
Try to learn something about mental illness before you go spouting off.
2007-12-02 15:10:52 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
They're out walking around because in an effort to reform the mental health system, Ronnie Reagan shut down asylums in favor of counciling and monitored medication. Only thing is, he didn't fund the counciling and monitored medication. I guess he forgot to do that.
2007-12-02 15:10:27 · answer #5 · answered by brickity hussein brack 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Owing a gun can be dangerous. Some guns shoot people who owe them.
2007-12-02 15:11:12 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No rights should be infringed upon. It's frightening what Americans have been conditioned to accept.
2007-12-02 15:13:14 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
And just think they will probably ban MARSHMALLOWS next.
2007-12-02 15:10:05 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Could you please provide a source.
2007-12-02 15:08:30 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋