Tricky Questions (mental illness, addiction, guns)

[cthulu2016]

Ga. backs relaxing gun laws for mentally ill

ATLANTA (AP) ... Legislators in Georgia's House voted 117-56 on Thursday to allow people who have voluntarily sought inpatient treatment for mental illness or substance abuse to get licenses. The same bill would force officials to check on whether applicants have received involuntary treatment in the past five years before issuing licenses.

http://news.yahoo.com/ga-backs-relaxing-gun-laws-143041490.html

This post is not about the entirety of the Georgia law, but only about the excerpt quoted above. I am interested here in the voluntary in-patient standard as a basis for law.

On the one hand we have the red flags... Georgia (backward and pro-gun) expanding gun access (bad) for the mentally ill (cartoon bad... conjures a picture of an overtly insane person being handed a gun)

On the other hand, we have what the excerpt says, rather than the cartoon picture conjured by the headline.

First, subtract what one thinks about guns in general from the equation. One might think that *nobody* should be allowed guns and that is a coherent position, but it is surely an error to favor all restrictions on guns with the logic that any restriction takes some guns off the street, and are thus a net positive.

If Georgia passed a law outlawing gun ownership by women, minorities, Democrats or people who do not own land it would take some guns off the street, but I assume (hope) everyone reading this would not view that kind of discriminatory law as a net positive.

So, setting aside whether we think a general gun right should exist, granting that it DOES exist, should that right be diminished if a person voluntarily checks into a psych ward or drug or alcohol rehab?

And if so, should a person who attends AA meetings face the same restriction. And if not, why not?

Is there a net positive in attaching any diminution of any right to voluntarily going to a mental health facility? And if so, should people who attend out-patient programs at mental health facilities face the same restrictions? And if not, why not? Or people taking medication for the treatment of a mental illness? And if not, why not?

And given the fact that people will know the law before deciding whether to seek treatment, would the law reduce the willingness of gun owners (as a specific class) to get help? Will the most potentially dangerous people in terms of armament be precisely the persons least likely to seek help?

[sweetloukillbot]

1. Voluntary treatment should not disallow ownership

My wife had a nervous breakdown and checked herself into the hospital. She is bipolar and receiving treatment. She is not a danger to herself or others. Should she be barred from purchasing a firearm? Should I? It would be in the same household and she'd likely have access to any locks or safes.

In truth, people who are actively seeking treatment are doing it because they are concerned about themselves or others - they are acting responsibly. Should the be punished or stigmatized because of this? And I do think this stigma would cause people to not seek treatment.

Now, I feel different about someone who was involuntarily committed, however.

[bowens43]

3. anyone owns a gun is a danger to themselves and others.

[The Straight Story]

4. So basically all cops/military/many people all over the world

show an indication of mental instability because they have guns?

Okay.....

[napoleon_in_rags]

2. I think there's reason here. People who voluntarily seek help are the safest, yet...

...they are the ones most likely to have a paper trail associated with mental illness or drug use that could be used to deny them a gun. That risks creating the exact opposite effect as wanted, as you say gun owners would avoid treatment if they started to get crazy. What you want is a situation where a gun owner who's having a mental health episode can get treatment without fearing of losing his rights once he's stabilized and gotten back on his feet.

[arely staircase]

6. it does creat a kind of paradox

if you are depressed and/or alcoholic and you seek treatment (the resposnsible thing to do) you create paper that says you are unstable and could be restricted from what is (for better or worse) a constitutional right, according to the scotus. if you avoid treatment for fear of losing said right, you have the worst possible scenario - an untreated depressed drunk person with firearms.

i get that.

however, "losening restrictions on people treated for mental illness owning firearms" has such an instinctively counter-intuitive sound to it that my first reaction is that this is a bad idea. and coming out of the state from which it is coming, well let's just say i doubt its wisdom even more.

[napoleon_in_rags]

7. It will be tricky to find out if they're right or wrong.

To the extent they're right, people who might have been dangerous before will seek help that they wouldn't have before, and we'll never know what was prevented. To the extent they're wrong, people who sought help will be empowered to do dangerous acts, and if they do there will be a paper trail. But really evaluating it means we need to compare what was prevented next to what happened, and that's basically impossible.

That's the trick with all of this. When people are given the benefit of the doubt and they are good for it, there never is a news story, a catastrophic event which shows it. But the one time when it goes wrong, we all know.

My intuition with all of it is that we should build a culture where people know when to give up their keys for the night (so as not have them taken away permanently) and know when to give up their guns for awhile, like if their abusing drugs or having a mental health episode. So really a culture of responsibility...no almost a culture of meta-responsibility, where if you don't have the ability to be responsible for something like driving or gun ownership, you take responsibility for the fact that you are unable to take responsibility.

[arely staircase]

8. that was put wonderfully.

all i know is that there is some sort of disfunction at the intersection of mental health and access to firearms (which to some extent, for better or worse, is a constitutional right in this country.) So, here we are.

[napoleon_in_rags]

9. You know who just made a good move?

Eric Holder. He said "I will not use a drone to kill an American on American soil who is not a combatant."

The idea that he should have to say this at all was dismissed by many as absurd. But he said it, because the concern was raised by Rand Paul that such an interpretation of the law might exist, and he was echoing a concern of millions, who previous in the political discourse were ignored as having concerns that were absurd. These people raise these concerns because they are are scared shitless by history, and though the other end of the political spectrum, I relate to them. You know what part of history scares me? Slavery. People on these private sector forced labor camps in this great country's south, patrolled by armed guards, unable to escape. Many being beaten, many being raped. This being passed off as something worthwhile, something people would take up arms and die to defend.

For others its the Nazi situation, the Uganda situation, the Serbia situation, the Stalin situation, the Mao situation, or aspects of the the modern North Korea situation. We see that ridiculously bad stuff happens. And we are afraid of it. Sometimes, when our concerns aren't addressed, we feel absolutely alone in our perceptions of the threats, and we decide we must take singular actions.

I feel that a real leader moves forward with a fearless dialogue, unafraid to address any aspect of history in all its horror. Unafraid to speak to any concerns with a strait gaze. Truth being foremost.

How does this relate to your points? Only through my intuition. I feel that mental illness is like drowning: Once you're down to a certain depth, there's very little people can do. But right after you fall in, there's a lot people can do. Voicing the awareness that we're all sailing on the same boat regardless of one's perspective seems like a step in the right direction.

Edit: I'm coming back to this post because I want to elaborate further on it, I feel its important. In simple terms, madness is when one's world view diverges radically from the consensus world view. We get a sense of the consensus world view when we talk to people, when we turn on the news. Now consider the perspective for a woman in a human trafficking situation. Her captor turns on the news and she hears Anderson Cooper's chuckling Ridiculist, while she's being tortured. She's one of 2.5 million people world wide in the same situation, but for the most part not talked about. She is experiencing a reality widely divergent from the the consensus reality as presented on the news, she feels herself sinking into madness.

Other people experience various other aspects of organised crime in this digital age, not knowing the source of it. (often blaming government because that's what the only sources that speak to the abuse say) They too are marginalised from the consensus world view, they are moving into the realm of madness.

Then somebody else, who just has the chemicals in their brain off. They experience the purest form of madness, as the witches psychically communicate with them. No reality to it, but the same experience of marginalisation.

Point: Sanity comes when people know they aren't alone, whatever they are experiencing. The Internet gives us the possibility to find views matching our own, whatever they may be. Its critical that these views ALL be expressed in forms people can relate to, so that people can find a normalising community whatever their world view may be. Its critical that mainstream media, and leaders, not be afraid to speak to the TOTALITY of human experience, and the TOTALITY of human concerns. None should be dismissed as fringe.

Once we do that, once we maximise our outreach the diversity of human experiences and concerns, we've thrown out proverbial life vests to those floating on the waves of world view marginalisation experience which leads to madness. For those who've gone under, there's little we can do. But in showing that despite all the suffering, all the darkness, we're still in this thing together - we do a lot for the sanity of the populous at large.

Peace and love!
Nir

[thetruthhurtsforsome]

5. Well the people of Georgia seem to think it is a good idea so why not!

We will collect the data over a few years and see the results.

Now I for one think that the data will prove conclusively it was a bad idea but I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

As long as this is limited to Georgia, I really don't care what they do or not do about GA state gun laws.