Mongoose 0 Posted February 25, 2009 Doubt this has been done before so here goes. Do you think that mentally ill people should be allowed to own firearms? If you're considered too dangerous to be trusted with a firearm than you should be locked up. Just because someone is mentally ill doesn't mean they're dangerous. I suffer from mental illness' and am ONLY dangerous if threatened. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chris82 3 Posted February 25, 2009 Do you think that mentally ill people should be allowed to own firearms? Absolutely not. At least not without extensive screening to determine stability would be demonstrated by the owner. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Huckleberry Pie 47 Posted February 25, 2009 Doubt this has been done before so here goes. Do you think that mentally ill people should be allowed to own firearms? If you're considered too dangerous to be trusted with a firearm than you should be locked up. Just because someone is mentally ill doesn't mean they're dangerous. I suffer from mental illness' and am ONLY dangerous if threatened. Giving an M4 or a TEC-9 on a mentally ill person is like giving a nuke to a chimpanzee, so no... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Spaz The Great 67 Posted February 25, 2009 Doubt this has been done before so here goes. Do you think that mentally ill people should be allowed to own firearms? If you're considered too dangerous to be trusted with a firearm than you should be locked up. Just because someone is mentally ill doesn't mean they're dangerous. I suffer from mental illness' and am ONLY dangerous if threatened. Giving an M4 or a TEC-9 on a mentally ill person is like giving a nuke to a chimpanzee, so no... Because those are both common civilian fire-arms. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mongoose 0 Posted February 25, 2009 Being mentally ill I've never used a firearm on a person, and I wouldn't unless my life was in danger. Now the mentally ill that have been in and out of hospitals shouldn't have firearms. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Connor 6 Posted February 25, 2009 (edited) I'd probably threaten someone with a gun to their head just for the lulz, without thinking how dangerous it us. Probably wouldn't shoot them, unless they were trying to rob my shit, but yeah, I get threatened easily, guns aren't allowed in teh UK anyway. Never give me anything sharp either, lol once my mate was pissing me off so I turned round and shoved a kitchen knife in his face and he was like "ARR OMG!". So nah, people with illnesses shouldn't really own firearms, because if they're like me, they're probably gonna shoot someone in the face by accident. Edited February 25, 2009 by Twisted Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mongoose 0 Posted February 25, 2009 I would like to point out that I don't currently own any firearms. I do however have a KWC Mini Uzi on the way from Kapowwe though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gerard 64 Posted March 5, 2009 This is quite a good question, but I think it has a simple answer. Mentally ill people who are more likely to overreact should not be let anywhere near a firearm. I know a lot of people that fit into this category, but in fact I know a lot of not-ill people who also get angry very quickly. I really don't see the need unless you are I appreciate you say you only overreact if provoked, but all it takes is an eigth of a second of anger and you can kill someone. 'Normal' people (without any known/unknown mental illnesses) would usually be too scared to do it, or they would take a lot more provoking. That's not to say they wouldn't ever shoot, but they're a lot less likely to than paranoid schizophrenicss or marajuana users. It isn't always possible to tell who will flip out, who will get too angry, who will not be scared of pulling the trigger - but if certain mental health issues are a good indicator, then that's a good place to start. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Connor 6 Posted March 5, 2009 I have no sense of right and wrong with things like that at the time, so I could just pull the trigger and blow someone's face off without even thinking about it. If I was someone else, I wouldn't let me or people like me near any weapons, once I found a saw at school and scared the shit out of someone, then afterwards I'm like, "wtf how wrong was that". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Urbanoutlaw 12 Posted March 5, 2009 Define "mentally ill". Is the person in question just a little eccentric ( ) or really a danger the themselves &/or others? One of my kids (technically step-daughter, but if you spend 10 years raising 'em, they're yours) is legally insane & a little too comfortable w/ the contents of the human body. The weapons are kept locked up, period. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Spaz The Great 67 Posted March 6, 2009 This is quite a good question, but I think it has a simple answer. Mentally ill people who are more likely to overreact should not be let anywhere near a firearm. I know a lot of people that fit into this category, but in fact I know a lot of not-ill people who also get angry very quickly. I really don't see the need unless you are I appreciate you say you only overreact if provoked, but all it takes is an eigth of a second of anger and you can kill someone. 'Normal' people (without any known/unknown mental illnesses) would usually be too scared to do it, or they would take a lot more provoking. That's not to say they wouldn't ever shoot, but they're a lot less likely to than paranoid schizophrenicss or marajuana users. It isn't always possible to tell who will flip out, who will get too angry, who will not be scared of pulling the trigger - but if certain mental health issues are a good indicator, then that's a good place to start. Yooouuu're trollin', right? Please tell me.... You're trollin'....... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gerard 64 Posted March 6, 2009 I meant abusers, or I meant whilst high (on other substances). Take your pick. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Artur 8 Posted March 6, 2009 Haha Gerard I was gonna point that out too. I agree with chris82, if mentally ill people were ever given firearms they should be 'examined' by the provider. But yeah even normal people kill/shoot people all the time and sometimes for no reason so I guess it would be more dangerous to give mentally ill people guns... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Urbanoutlaw 12 Posted March 12, 2009 Irony: In the early '90s when the Brady bill (Background checks, waiting periods, etc) was proposed, pro 2nd amendment law makers also wanted to check potential gun buyers for a history of mental illness. Sara Brady categorically rejected it, it might offend mentally ill people. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Connor 6 Posted March 12, 2009 (edited) It might offend a small amount of people having their face blown off by some lunatic with a sawn-off shotgun... Edited March 12, 2009 by Twisted Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Urbanoutlaw 12 Posted March 12, 2009 It might offend a small amount of people having their face blown off by some lunatic with a sawn-off shotgun... Yeah, go figure. I think you got my point. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rockstarrem 17 Posted March 15, 2009 My uncle is mentally ill, he's also Catholic and doesn't believe in violence. What if he owned one for protection? His illness is not psychotic or anything. I'm mentally ill... I wouldn't go on a killing spree. Define "mentally ill". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Connor 6 Posted March 15, 2009 I've considered going on killing sprees at school, dreamed about it through whole days sometimes, just to see the look on peoples faces before I blow them away ("I'm so sorry for taking the piss out of you" kinda face), gone up to actually planning it. I'm just not ill enough to go and do it. Probably a combination of being autistic and having a really fucking bad anger problem. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gerard 64 Posted March 15, 2009 We're talking about violence-related mental illnesses, or extreme social disorders (such as ones which stop you valuing the lives of others) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MeZaMe YuMe_MoMoKu 2 Posted March 16, 2009 Absolutely no. You never know what's in the mind of mentally ill persons, so it's difficult to give them weapons. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bear 9 Posted March 16, 2009 I don't think the mentally ill should be able to own firearms, then again I believe that civilians shouldn't be able to own firearms anyway. Just a personal belief of mine. I read alot about serial killers, most were mentally ill (head injuries see to be a common trait in what makes them become killers) and it always shocked me to see how they were diagonised but were still allowed to buy guns. I know not everyone who is mentally ill is a ruthless serial killer, I just don't think its a good idea for anyone to own a gun. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rockstarrem 17 Posted March 18, 2009 We're talking about violence-related mental illnesses, or extreme social disorders (such as ones which stop you valuing the lives of others) Then isn't the question obvious? In my opinion this is a stupid debate - if they're known to be dangerous then OBVIOUSLY don't give them weapons. If they're mental illnesses in general then that's just stereotypical and will give people one more reason to look at anxiety/depression/bipolar/autism/whateverthefuckyouhave as crazy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gerard 64 Posted March 18, 2009 If I may take Connor as an example? I don't know the detail so this is an approximation. He's maybe a bit unstable, but probably not actually dangerous 99% of the time. Unless theres a definite illness that would prevent him owning a gun, currently he'd be able to get one (where thats legal). But I could imagine him flipping out and doing serious damage. Just once, after a lot of provoking, he could very easily kill someone. Should he be allowed? I'm sure all of us have our limits. If someone held a gun to my face, I'd shoot. If someone held a knife to me or a friend/family member, I would probably shoot (but not aim to kill). Maybe some of you would shoot to kill in that situation, maybe some of you would shoot in even less threatening situations (eg being beaten up). I just think Connor's limits are a bit lower, so he might shoot when threatened/provoked/made fun of, even if he isn't in mortal danger. Where do we draw the line for that limit to be for it to be safe for you to own a gun? Probably just where the law says reasonable force is OK? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Connor 6 Posted March 18, 2009 (edited) Gerard's right, luckily I live in a country where it's impossible to get a gun for a kid like me though, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot to kill if someone was in my house and I was threatened. This is even if they were just petty thieves, in my mind right now, I would kill them and say it was self-defense, they shouldn't be in my house, stealing my fucking stuff. That would probably happen now anyway, my room is filled with knives and other objects to kill. Edited March 18, 2009 by Twisted Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rockstarrem 17 Posted March 18, 2009 If I may take Connor as an example? I don't know the detail so this is an approximation.He's maybe a bit unstable, but probably not actually dangerous 99% of the time. Unless theres a definite illness that would prevent him owning a gun, currently he'd be able to get one (where thats legal). But I could imagine him flipping out and doing serious damage. Just once, after a lot of provoking, he could very easily kill someone. Should he be allowed? I'm sure all of us have our limits. If someone held a gun to my face, I'd shoot. If someone held a knife to me or a friend/family member, I would probably shoot (but not aim to kill). Maybe some of you would shoot to kill in that situation, maybe some of you would shoot in even less threatening situations (eg being beaten up). I just think Connor's limits are a bit lower, so he might shoot when threatened/provoked/made fun of, even if he isn't in mortal danger. Where do we draw the line for that limit to be for it to be safe for you to own a gun? Probably just where the law says reasonable force is OK? Connor should not be allowed a gun, no . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
