I want to steer clear of painting every 'mental illness' with the same brush, not all mental illness translates into being a danger to society. That is why it may be an idea for health professionals to flag those patients who they feel could harm others. OR there could simply be a mandatory psych review when purchasing a gun. That way people have no reason to avoid treatment. and it will be more difficult for those who may be a harm to LEGALLY get their hands on their own gun(this does nothing if they live with or are close to someone else with a gun though ... which is another issue)
With respect, your response side steps the issue. People with mental illness need treatment, true. Focusing on mentally ill people buying weapons and killing people is not painting every mentally ill person as a killer. It would focus on enforcing gun laws as they should be.
The facts are plain that from Columbine Nigh School until Jacksonville all of them had a documented track record of psychiatric issues. The antigun lobbyists and media purposefully sidestep this issue. They use the excuse they don't want to give the image that all mentally challenged people are killers. However, they have no problem connecting the average law abiding gun owner with supporting serial killers. take note of their shots at the NRA.
This is the main issue. Mentally ill people obtaining weapons when common sense and the law forbids them. I understand condemning the 1961 pop hit "They're coming to take me away". That was rude and demeaning.
Ignoring this fact is hiding the problem. These people need help but should,also, be denied access to weapons. And society needs to know that the average gun owner (and guns themself) are not the problem and the evening TV news refuse to address this issue.
with respect, no sidestepping
a woman suffering from PTSD, or a kid who may have depression are both 'mental illness' but of very different natures and not suggesting any danger to others.
people use the blanket term 'mentally ill' which may suggest policy to prevent anyone who has ever had treatment for ANYthing be denied their 'right' as a citizen to bear arms.
there has to be more specific criteria than just the label of 'mental illness' to set policy is all I was saying
there has to be an actual threat to others, which not all mental illness is.
I think it is a legit concern that labeling anyone who has had help for emotional or mental issues as a public threat would greatly harm the chances for people to seek help. To avoid it, I would think some testing of ones threat WHEN they want a license to carry is at least something to consider. I think some other countries with less gun crime actually have such tests that inquire as to the persons beliefs and intentions with the gun. IF there is deception on whether they wish to harm others,,, its a no go.
Big difference between having a slight case of depression and being, involuntarily, placed in a hospital for psychiatric problems as with this guy. Stating on facebook that they plan to shoot up their school as in the case with Columbine. Or being released from the air force for making threats to officers and then killing members of a Church.
Society is being kept in the dark and made to think that the average "joe" is doing these shooting sprees, when they aren't! Everyone of them had a known psychiatric history that should have disqualified them from owning a weapon.
What I read was his parents put him there as a teen, which would be involuntary on his part because it was his parents choice. But nothing on what the actual diagnosis was.
I think the Columbine shooters had guns before they made threats.
