The mentally ill should not have guns. Guns kill people and they are very dangerous. The mentally ill people and guns is a very bad mix. When the mentally ill people get upset they can become violent and this can lead to bad results. Guns just make it easier for them to create mayhem.
Mentally ill people are not able to control some of their actions and thus are more likely to show impulsive reactions with violence or are not equipped with empathy. With little to no empathy, there is a higher likelihood that harming others can occur. The inconsistencies and known unstable, dysfunctional behavior is more apparent with many that have mental health issues. Keeping guns away from mentally ill people is one way to help lessen violent acts with guns. You wouldn't leave a diabetic with only a bag of sugar? Why leave gun use and ownership with someone who may not have the ability to control their reactions?
There is a common misunderstanding about the Second Amendment. It's about "The right to bare arms to form a militia." It doesn't promise people the right to a firearm. Owning a gun should be a privilege, not a right. People who are mentally ill should be kept away guns not only for public safety, but the mentally ill person's safety as well.
Mentally ill people have been known for violence and the reason has been completely void as in the reason they have would not be a reason for a person who is not mentally ill video games for example or television we don't need these people to have weapons that can hurt or kill
Mental health issues can include irrational reactions and behavior. Having access to guns increases those with dysfunctional belief systems more vulnerable to misuse. Some people with mental health problems are lacking empathy. A lack of empathy is dangerous with regard to knowing how your behavior can affect others. If the mental health issue is such that the person hates themselves, they may decide to harm others who they may blame and bring violence to both themselves and those around them in order to feel justified in their act. Having gun controls for those with mental health issues makes sense. You wouldn't leave a child in the presence of a convicted pedophile? It is still an illness. This isn't a discriminatory way of keeping mentally ill people away from society, but leaving guns in their presence increases harm that could happen to themselves or to others. Having some control over who has access to guns can help lessen the violence.
The bigger issue is a need for less of a stigma against mental health concerns and make sure help is readily available without judgment so those that have mental illness can be treated with respect, but also be kept away from things that could hurt others.
I don't think normal citizens should own guns, much less the mentally ill. There should be stricter gun laws for the mentally ill and unstable. Why wouldn't there be? They can't even think straight to perform normal functions, how can they be in charge of handling guns?? Even if a person shows no history of physical violence, owning guns will encourage the person to use the weapons...Especially when they have mental issues. I don't belive in guns as I don't see why I would need to use one, but if I were selling guns, I would never sell one to a mentally ill person. They are unstable and I would not want to take the risk...Lives may be at stake.
A lot of mentally ill people have been involved in mass shootings or have committed suicide with a firearm. These could all be prevented with more laws or regulations against the mentally ill owning a gun. I know it might seem discriminating but based off of facts from the past, it is a safe thing to do.
Mental illness can cause people to lose their impulse control and can also lead to extreme violence when the person gets angry. If a mentally ill person gets angry when they are around a gun their lack in impulse control will push them towards picking up the firearm and using it to channel out all of their anger.
Not every mentally ill person is violent. Some mentally ill people have conditions that aren't associated with violence (i.E. Asperger's Syndrome). However, there are people out there with mental conditions that, while not always associated with violence, can lead to a person behaving in unpredictable ways. Because we don't know which individuals with such conditions (i.E. Schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, psychopathy/sociopathy) are dangerous or when they're going to snap (and also because we don't notice (or pretend not to notice) their symptoms), we need to keep guns and other weapons away from them. In addition, we need to put forth a combination of therapy and medication to such individuals. And if their behavior doesn't improve or if they refuse therapy and/or medication, we need to put them in mental institutions, where they can be forced to undergo treatment. But the biggest thing we can do is to lessen the stigma about mental illness and educate the public about mental illness and how to recognize the symptoms of various conditions.
I know that not all people who have mental diseases are violent. But what can we classify as a mental disease or disorder? I believe that those who have multiple personalities or some who are depressed, etc. are a threat to not only themselves but others around them. I am all for the second amendment, but I also want to make sure that everyone is safe
The problem with targeting the mentally ill with gun control is that many people who use guns to harm people have no prior diagnosis of mental illness prior to committing their crime and don't show behavior sufficient enough to raise red flags until it is often too late. Furthermore, violence is not always indicative of mental illness. Many mentally ill people are non-violent and not likely to commit a crime using a gun.
Mental illness (bipolar or schizophrenia) does affect the way someone behaves and relates to other people, but doesn't make people violent or murderous. By taking away guns from persons diagnosed with bipolar or schizophrenia, we are making them less likely to seek help, so they will be less likely to improve their relations with other people (a factor of homelessness). The National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) agrees "Federal and state gun reporting laws should be based on violence, not mental illness."
White supremacist and hate groups are more likely to commit murder then persons with mental illness, yet we don't take guns from them.
The systems of background checks in place are adequate to prevent those with a history of violence, the biggest predictor of violence from obtaining weapons.
For an argument from rights The right to bear arms is a civil liberty which is protected by the 2nd and more specifically the fourteenth amendment which would deprive a large group citizens of their rights to property.
Also the mentally ill are more likely to be victims of violent crime by nearly a margin of twenty percent. Such measures would reduce the defensive capacity of those who are most likely to require it.
Also this could have the effect of people not seeking treatment because they do not want their personal possessions, possibly their hobbies, like hunting, or skeet shooting taken away from them.
Would it be proposed that idealistic Veterans who volunteered to protect the rights of citizens who acquired PTS, or any other psychiatric disease have their firearms confiscated? Furthermore mass murders are not linked to a history of mental illness, but instead a loss of financial or social status, and drug or alcohol abuse.
Also such a policy would be a violation of HIPAA and the individuals right to privacy, which is of great concern to people with psychiatric conditions.
Most mentally ill people are not violent. The main time we hear about mental illness and gun violence are mass shootings, but those are a small percentage of total crime. Mentally ill individuals are also more likely to be victims of violent crime, making gun ownership more important for them. For all mentally ill people to be refused their second amendment rights due to the fact that headline news articles make people scared of the few is horrifyingly totalitarian. Only restrict their gun rights if they are shown to be particularly violent individuals, or there is beyond a reasonable doubt that they cannot be trusted with them.
I mean look at me I'm mentally disabled but I'm not violent ask quite a bit of people they will call me a sweetheart. But back to my point why should someone mentally ill or disabled be denied the right to defend themselves. Yeah sure there's locks but there are lock picks. There are knives but that means you have to be close enough to use it and some of us can't fundle with our pockets to grab it and some of us have a harder time opening the knife if it's a folding knife. What if one day the person to stop a shooting was someone with a mental illness, was mentally unstable, and had a gun? Now let's imagine that took place where it is illegal for those deemed mentally unstable to own a gun and the guy who stopped the shooter got arrested or fined depending on the state laws and punishment. What then?
Seriously. Take a minute and come up with you own definition of "mentally ill." If you can't then I guess you don't know what you're even talking about, do you? Is hunting down people with issues and taking their rights away like a modern day witch hunt? Does anybody even know what they're looking for or is it just find somebody who is different, tie them to a stake, and burn them?
People who are considered unsafe around guns are considered unsafe in general. What difference does a gun make? Should their driver's licenses be taken away as well? You could drive on the boardwalk and kill as many people with a truck as you could with a gun.
Threatening people who are having problems with losing their rights is not going to make them want to get help.
Wouldn't society be better off if these "mentally ill" (which I can't define in my own words) people received help instead of hurt?
I have Asperger's syndrome, which is a mild form of autism, am considered high functioning and hunt as part of my heritage and as a way to transfer the delicious fruits of nature from the woods to my dinner plate. I have no intentions on hurting myself or anyone, but have been institutionalized by my own will because I was depressed and wanted to hurt myself. However, I am a very kind and loving individual and like I said I'm not a threat to anyone's safety. Should my guns be taken away along with my hobbies and way of life because I sought help? Or should I be considered rehabilitated and be allowed to live my life without hurting anybody?
If you personally think I should be banned from owning guns and hunting because I sought help, that's like saying people should be penalized for seeking help, or that nobody should be forgiven for anything ever. Have some empathy. How would you like to be treated?
I doubt anybody has a great definition of "mental illness" in their own words. It's such a commonly used phrase and nobody even knows what it means but continue to broadly generalize people with problems and put them all in the same category.
There's no doubt that some people need help and many of those who don't seek it are forced to receive it. There are places where people can get help and have to be considered stable before being released back into society. Then, they should not be treated differently or have more or less rights than anybody else. People deserve to be treated equally.
Let them get the help they deserve and keep the same privileges as everybody else.