Amazon.com Widgets

Should former Psychiatric Hospital patients with a diagnosed Mental Illness be allowed to own Firearms?

Asked by: cludwig
  • Doctors should not be able to determine property ownership

    A person should be allow to own any property, even a gun regardless of mental status. Government should not define what a person is allowed to own. If using mental illness as a condition to own property, that puts doctors in charge of whom can own property, keep medicine out of property ownership. Also, definitions of mental illness can be changed very easily.

  • If they have no criminal record, then yes

    Most gun violence can be attributed to substance abuse and criminality. Many with such a background and a history of physical violence are still able to own guns. In my opinion, the man or woman who beats his family and drinks is far more dangerous than the mentally ill individual with no criminal history. Mental illness is not a crime and neither is involuntary commitment in a psychiatric facility. Why should gun ownership be allowed for criminals, yet taken away from a certain group of law abiding citizens because of unfounded prejudice, fear and stereotyping? This doesn't seem right to me.

  • If they are cleared by a psychiatrist

    Not all problems are permanent. With neuroplasticity people can change even when that is statistically atypical for a given condition. Also some problems are usually temporary, for instance drug-induced psychosis.

    A psychiatrist should take a look at the person and determine whether they are well enough to be cleared to possess a firearm.

  • All this shows is a misunderstanding about mental illness on the no side. Your basically saying that criminals dont have the right to defend themselves.

    Bad guys have guns. Your basically saying that a mentally ill person doesnt have the right to defend themselves. Depression? Depression isnt going to make a person hurt someone else in most cases. Where are is the statistical evidence to support the no side? Are depressed people more likely to hurt others than normal people? I dont think so. You would probably say its for their own safety. But i think they are safer with guns than without. Without guns criminals can make them suffer greatly. With a gun they might kill themselves and end their suffering and probably become safer then they were on earth whether there is no after life or not. If i hadnt had a gun two years ago because of my depression i could be in bad shape because i was attacked by a guy with a baseball bat. Im glad i have the right to own a gun. Im not a threat to anyone because of my depression. I have had guns all my life and havent hurt anyone. I would have disagreed if the question was should SOME mentally ill people not have the right to own guns. Most people have some form of mental illness. A lot of people are misdiagnosed also and dont actually have a mental illness but experience similar symptoms from circumstances. So no i dont think that just because you have went to the hospital because you were suicidal once in your life you should not be able to own guns. That is ridiculous

  • Yes but on a few conditions

    Although this thought may be scary, some Mental Illnesses are not permanent and can be recovered from. I think that as long as a doctor has told us after rehabilitation that the person is mentally stable and is doing well on regular life outside of a hospital he should be able to purchase and own a firearm as long as they go through the background checks required.

  • Too Uncertain to Tell

    Most people who undergo school shootings and kill children in the masses have suffered from some sort of psychiatric condition. It only makes sense to not allow them to own firearms. We are so blinded by our ability to have "the freedom to own firearms" that we completely ignore the freedom from fear.

  • Although some may disagree….. I'd certainly feel a lot safer

    Yes perhaps they are not criminals. But they have been proven to be unstable, unpredictable and provoked by things that the majority of "normal" people would (could?) not understand. A lot of these mental illnesses will have adverse affect on judgement, and even "normal" people do things they regret when their judgement is half as clouded as a mentally ill person would.

  • No, Just Too Many Variables

    I am in favor of firearms, and am currently in the process of getting my CWP, but firearms quite simply aren't for everyone. Generally speaking, most of the gun violence in the past several years has been caused by individuals with a criminal history. However, it would be negligent not to address the fact that the majority of the mass shootings in the past few years have been the actions of mentally disturbed individuals. If the United States will not take a serious stance on mental health reform, to make sure that mentally ill individuals are well taken care of, then universal background checks and preventing mentally ill gun owners is the safest course of action.

  • They are unstable

    Even if they have no criminal record people with diagnosed mental illnesses (depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, etc.) pose a much higher threat than those who do not have mental illnesses while they are possession of a firearm. Not only are they more likely to be suicidal, but also they are more likely to harm others while in possession of such weapons. Letting people with mental illnesses own guns is not worth the risk.

  • Too Uncertain to Tell

    Most people who undergo school shootings and kill children in the masses have suffered from some sort of psychiatric condition. It only makes sense to not allow them to own firearms. We are so blinded by our ability to have "the freedom to own firearms" that we completely ignore the freedom from fear.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Juris_Naturalis says2015-02-27T19:47:52.243
If anyone wants to seriously debate the pro side, I'll take the con.