A large part of our population would like to see mental health be an issue when it comes to any revisions in gun laws. They believe that keeping mentally ill people from getting guns might reduce gun violence. If so, what kinds of mental illness should a person have to be excluded from gun ownership? What should we use for markers of illness severe enough to exclude them from their 2nd amendment right. Anorexia is a mental illness. Do we want to exclude those with such a diagnosis from having guns? How about those with mental retardation? Let me offer just a few suggestions. This is not intended to be a comprehensive list. Feel free to disagree or add to this short list. I believe it is fairly well known that we have a very limited ability to predict the tendency to violence for any given individual, but I think the following groups have enough increased risk to merit consideration.
1) Anyone who has ever been involuntarily committed to a psychiatric facility. In order to be involuntarily committed, one must have been judged to be a risk to others or to one’s self.
2) Any history of a conviction for DUI, or a documented blood alcohol level indicating intoxication at a medical facility by a person who was driving. A person willing to drive a car while intoxicated has demonstrated a lack of regard for the lives of others. They have forfeited the right to own a firearm.
3) A diagnosis of psychotic depression. These people are more likely to try to kill themselves.
4) A conviction, or admission to a treatment unit, for heroin, cocaine or meth abuse. These are expensive drug habits. Theft is one of the ways these people finance their habit.
5) A diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder. Disregard for the rights of others is central to this diagnosis. It is unlikely such a person could be a responsible gun owner.
Federal law already bars gun ownership by #1 (see 18 USC 922(g)(4)) and #4 (18 USC 922(g)(3)). Per 27 CFR 478.11, 18 USC 922(g)(4) also bars ownership by anyone who “Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs[,]” and anyone found insane in a criminal case.
Thanks. Was just trying to hit the obvious ones. Would seem kind of odd to leave them off the list even if they were already there. Also, wasnt sure if current law, as applying to #1, also included suicidal behavior.
Steve
MI is right that federal law already bars the right to register firearms based on #1 & #3….there is not nor should there be any consideration of barring those convicted of drug and alcohol offenses (every physician I’ve ever known, and that’s many dozens, has had one or more of these…most have had serious amphetamine use often coupled with barbiturate use to “come down” off the amphetamine highs), on the other hand I’ve never had even so much as DUI…I rarely drink, never use drugs, but have what has been called “Disassociate Disorder” (“Evincing a marked inability to make meaningful connections with other people”), though that’s never been officially diagnosed and I’ve never been treated for that, nor for my earlier dyslexia and ADD. BOTH of those were latently “diagnosed” but never officially and I was never treated for either. I “improvised, adapted and overcame” those on my own…and a liberal dose of fear of the Nuns who applied a rather severe corporeal discipline quite liberally.
Now, many of those physicians have also never been “officially” diagnosed, though a number have sought drug treatment and many others have had DUIs, including a plastic surgeon neighbor of mine.
I’d have no worries about any of those folks possessing firearms.
On the other hand, I’d bet many of them would NOT be so sanguine about me possessing such weapons, despite no DUIs, no drug treatment and no official diagnoses of any kind. Hell, I actually collected various snake venom while in then Rhodesia, dried it, ground it to particles between 5 to 8 microns, then tried it out (tested) it on a group of people “punishing” a group of children determined to be “witches.” I, myself would’ve happily tested it on a group of wash-women along the banks of the Kwekwe river. The material needed to be tested.
I firmly believe that virtually anyone could present a clear and present danger to themselves and others under the right conditions. I can make chemical weaponry, I can make rudimentary biological weaponry, but am not confident the cultivation and manipulation of viruses (very dangerous) and I can make decent handguns and rifles in a machine shop, BUT I pose absolutely no threat at all to myself or others…never have.
The sole focus of gun laws MUST be the targeting of criminal uses of firearms.
A shopkeeper who uses an unregistered gun to kill a man who attempts to rob his store with a knife….HERO (his defensive stance makes even that imbalanced dynamic “self defense”)
A man who uses a gun to rob a 7/11….1st offense should carry “Treble damages” (if armed robbery gets 5yrs, then armed robbery with a gun would get a mandatory 15yrs!
A homeowner who shoots three home invaders with a 12-gauge shotgun (shotguns are not required to be registered)….HERO (such a person has a inalienable right to defend himself and his possessions with deadly force)
A woman who shoots an unarmed man in a road-rage incident after being cut off….should be subjected to a mandated sentence with “treble damages.”
Another part of any new focus on gun crimes must look at what works. In NYC gun crimes have been greatly reduced by targeted “Stop & Frisks” first instituted by Mayor Giuliani and continued by Mayor Bloomberg. The NYPD’s targeting inner city residents (particularly males, but anyone who looks “suspicious”) for such “Stop & Frisks” searching for illegal guns has worked.
The key to the program is “targeting” the measures and resources to the most impacted areas and the most likely culprits.
Such “Stop & Frisks” have shown that they CAN greatly reduce random gun violence, what they CANNOT do (No law, NO public policy can) is to stop or even reduce the most effective mass murders, those like the Bath School bombings and the Happyland Social Club massacre.
I’m betting none of you guys, and probably none of the people who believe commitment for danger to self and is coextensive with being too dangerous to have a gun, has ever tried to GET somebody committed on those grounds. It is just about impossible, because most mental hospitals do not have the space for new patients. So there are plenty of people out there who OUGHT to have been committed, but who haven’t been and probably never will be, and who STILL shouldn’t have guns.
Worked as a mental health worker in mental health ERs in Philadelphia for about 8 years. Helped fill out hundreds of 405 (th older forms) and 302 involuntary commitments. I took the initial complaint, which I then called in to a MH magistrate which got us the warrant so the person could be brought in for evaluation against their will. The psychiatrist then made the evaluation and I then arranged the admission to an inpt facility. I knew the admissions people at many Phila. are MH inopt facilities by first name. This was in the 70s and 80s.
Steve
Right. That was in the 1980s. Today, you’d have a much harder time.
Is there any evidence that any of these groups are more likely to use a gun to attack another person that the general population as a whole? While I believe that we need some sort of psychiatric basis for denying gun possession, I also believe we need to be very careful with this. Accuracy of diagnoses in psychiatry has not been shown to be consistent between doctors/therapists and has the potential for abuse by authorities. In general, suffering from psychosis would be a negative indicator, not just psychotic depression.
The history of DUI convictions would need to be carefully defined. I’ve known a lot of people, myself not included, who got DUIs during college age years who are no threat. I don’t see that there’s necessarily a connection here unless it goes under the addiction category.
Can you be convicted of drug abuse? You can for selling and possession. I’ve never heard of anyone being convicted for abuse that I can remember. Most felony convictions, which would cover many of the drug convictions, will prohibit you from legal gun ownership according to the Gun Control Act of 1968.
Question 11 e of the 4473 form required when you purchase a gun clearly asks if you are an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance. And right next to that question is are two checkboxes, Yes and No.
So the drug abuse question is already covered…
;-)
here’s a link to the form:
http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf
11 d is also funny in the same way:
“Are you a fugitive from justice?” Check Yes or No
These forms are absolutely useless.
Anyone who regularly uses illicit drugs but hasn’t (YET) been convicted of a felony drug offense can and WILL lie because no background check would raise a red flag. Why undermine yourself? No one would.
Mental health reports must be made open to gun dealers, etc so they can properly vet prospective gun buyers. It’s highly doubtful that opening up such records to such a commercial venue would do any harm…NOT doing so COULD result in some very serious harm.
While legally I’m not a fugitive from justice, in my own mind I am and believe many of us are. How many things have we done and got away with that we shouldn’t have. My father never caught me stealing the spare change out of his coat pockets.
I’ve been diagnosed with major mental illness and have been hospitalized numerous times in my life for suicidal depression. I’m as concerned as anyone about the rights of people with mental illness, but I can tell you this: if I’d ever had access to a gun, I wouldn’t be alive today (and god only knows about members of my immediate family). I also worked in the mental health field for years, and I guarantee you that many of the clients I worked with, when symptomatic, couldn’t have been trusted with guns either. I’d rather see background checks cast a wider net than miss dangerously unstable individuals; folks with serious mental illness need more (and better) treatment, not more (and more deadly) guns.
Potentiality.
That’s what our focus on those with histories of significant mental/emotional issues comes down – potentialities.
I do agree with those who see this as a serious issue. Privacy laws have to be loosened so that background checks can be made more efficiently, in that regard.
That said, my own PRIMARY focus is on a group far more likely to engage in gun violence (convicted violent felons) and yet, very little of these measures focus on that group.
By any appreciable measure, NYC’s gun crimes have been greatly reduced by targeted “Stop & Frisks” first instituted by Mayor Giuliani and continued by Mayor Bloomberg. The NYPD’s targeting inner city residents (particularly males, but anyone who looks “suspicious”) for such “Stop & Frisks” searching for illegal guns has worked.
The key to the program is “targeting” the measures and resources to the most impacted areas and the most likely culprits.
While those with mental and emotional issues (like Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Jared Loughner, etc) constitute a POTENTIALITY, in that SOME in that group will be a danger to themselves and others, gun control measures that all but overlook focusing on convicted felons are doomed to failure.
A vivid example of why people are pretty much “on their own” is made clear in this article in today’s NY Post City Says Cops had no Duty to Protect Subway Hero who Subdued Killer (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/to_serve_but_not_protect_Qr3ume5gEhMhtg8LvHgzAI) Two NYPD cops testified that they HID while Maksim Gelman stabbed good Samaritan Joseph Lozito 7 times, stepping only AFTER Lozito had fully subdued the burly drug-fueled Russian.
And here in Chicago some years ago, a private “security guard” actually escorted a guy with a gun, at gunpoint, up in the elevator to a law office where the guy proceeded to shoot a couple of lawyers and a bunch of clerks.
And, a while before that, Mr. Wired and I were driving through a park at night on our way home in a pouring rainstorm when our car stalled out. We were passed by several cop cars in the ensuing hour or so, and desperately tried to attract their attention with flashing lights and honking horn, with no success. Finally, I got out and walked to a nearby pay phone (that’s how long ago it was!) and called our auto club. Later on, I called the police station in the area to remonstrate with them. The desk sergeant told me that the police in that area were under ORDERS not to stop under such circumstances, because “you never know who could be in that car. It’s DANGEROUS out there.” I was struck so speechless by this argument that I couldn’t even bring myself to point out that WE were in danger too, and were supposedly paying, training, and arming the police to protect us. We never did figure out whom the cops were supposed to serve, but we are quite clear on whom they protect–themselves!
“The desk sergeant told me that the police in that area were under ORDERS not to stop under such circumstances, because “you never know who could be in that car. It’s DANGEROUS out there.” (WS)
.
.
.
I can understand your consternation…a LOT of people want desperately to believe that government workers….well, “work.” Most try to avoid as much actual work as possible….that’s easily proven by how poorly ALL state-run enterprises have performed.
TODAY the most inefficiently run and abusive energy companies are those run by governments.
The Police are the Civil Servants that are the closest to politicians…and I don’t mean mere proximity…they react as most politicians do – completely self-serving. In NYC the NYPD’s reaction to subway chain-snatchings was “Don’t wear jewelry on the subway.” Many police departments are pro gun control primarily because they’re too lazy to do their jobs and would like to eliminate as much risk in dealing with the public as possible.
So, I have no trouble taking these cops at their word that they hid (cowering in fear) as a brazen thug stabbed a civilian right in front of them. They’re government workers! In fact, they’re the closest thing to Civil Servant “politicians” there is.
THAT’S a disgrace…when police simply refuse to do what they’re paid to. NOT stopping to check on a stopped auto…NOT intervening in an attack right in front of them is as disgusting and cowardly as a firefighter refusing to enter a burning cellar. In the Bronx, we made sure that was NOT an option for anyone. The fact that other police officers do not allow cowardice to be an option for their cohorts is a disgrace. People have gotten severely injured and co-workers witnessed against the victim in the “confrontations” that followed such events. The idea that workers who disgrace an entity are “protected by law” is simply untrue…they’re only “protected” to the extent that the group (law-enforcement/firefighting etc. community) allows them to be protected. A guy can get beaten and be a “victim” of abuse….OR “an aggressor who simply picked a fight he lost” depending entirely on how the group depicts it.
I’ve known a lot of cops and liked many of them. A cousin of mine was involved in a hideous scandal (“The Dirty Thirty” – the 30th Precinct in Harlem) where they ripped off drug dealers in exchange for not “running them through the system.” It got out of hand (as most such schemes do) and a few were surreptitiously photographed snorting cocaine off the dashboards of police cruisers! How wild is THAT?! But that’s what happens when the whole system breaks down. When initially gung-ho “do-gooder” cops get hit with the reality that the prosecutors don’t care, the courts don’t care, even higher-up police officials don’t care, they “go out on their own”…they go “rogue.”
Again, like I said in another post, I don’t doubt that at least SOME (perhaps most) of what that cop-shooting scumbag Larry Davis said (he claimed to be dealing drugs for a cabal of NYPD cops, who came for him believing he’d shorted them) was true…or at least more true than not.
I know enough about government NOT to have much faith in it. The least of us (as people) tend to gravitate toward it. They may offend some people, but it’s an honest and accurate observation.
RE to Wired Sisters… it’s not difficult to be committed on those grounds (danger to oneself or others) as every state has a law that mandates a 72-hour commitment to Emergency psychiatric facilities (at any local hospital). For instance, Florida law is called the “Baker Act” if you’re interested in reading up about it. The only requisites that determine this 72-hour hold against a person’s will is that a health professional (including EMT/Paramedics) or a law enforcement member must deem you a hazard to your own health or the health of others. It’s fairly common. Many people assume that these commitments are to “mental hospitals” which is totally incorrect. Long-term psych wards are very different than what you are brought to for the 72-hour hold. And, like steve said, patients are required to undergo a series of psych evaluations by 2 licensed psychologists and a licensed psychiatrist.
In regard to the subject at hand, I think the broad term that steve has provided for this specific criteria needs to be narrowed down for prohibiting gun ownership. There are SO many cases of psychiatric events (resulting in the aforementioned commitment) which are not repeated ever again by those patients. People are driven to do crazy things, like try to kill themselves, when life seems to have no other options. Subsequently, people can turn their life around and never have another suicidal episode. Should one low life event prevent your from a right to gun ownership? I don’t think so. Rather, I think long-term commitment patients should not be able to own guns, as they have obviously been deemed unfit to return to society for an extended period of time.
In my opinion, you should have to go through a battery of psych tests like the MMPI or the CAQ to determine whether there is psych stability. And I’m sure someone has identified specific traits that are associated with these psycho gun-rampage killers and are probably creating a new assessment now. I don’t like guns, but I think they are a necessary evil because you should have the right to protect yourself. I’m just fine with a baseball bat though.
Go aluminum.
Steve
I was committed to a mental hospital twice when I was in my teenage years. I was diagnosed “bipolar” but my problem was really just that I was smoking a lot of weed and acting out. Now, in my early 20′s and over 3 years completely sober I really don’t think I am a danger to anyone. I plan to buy guns in the future, but at the moment I 1) am broke and guns cost money and 2) live on a college campus where I’m sure even a legally owned firearm is breaking rules somehow, either with the school or legally. Anyway, like I said I haven’t purchased or even tried to purchase firearms, but if I did, I would not be dangerous to anyone. I am not asking legal advice, and indeed I agree that it probably is a good idea not to let people with a history of mental health problems own guns. Although, I’m sure it is equally true that many people with criminal records have since reformed themselves and pose no threat to others. My point is that in either case, we can keep a lot of dangerous people from owning firearms, but it comes at the cost of a lot of people who are safe to others losing their right to firearms as well. Obviously this is a situation where we must weigh the costs and benefits of our current laws. And as much as I love going to the shooting ranges and popping off some brass, I have to admit that it is a freedom I would be willing to give up in exchange for myself or others not falling victims to these terrible mass shootings we’ve had recently or for that matter, many many other murders committed with firearms