3 ms·

"New York and California are, as a result of very recent legislation, actively seeking out and disarming those labeled "mentally ill". " What? On top of everyt

by alan_cx 13y ago

"New York and California are, as a result of very recent legislation, actively seeking out and disarming those labeled "mentally ill". " What? On top of everything else the mentally ill get to own guns? That is honestly shocking to me.

ctdonath 13y ago
"Mentally ill" is a very broad issue, both in definition and temporal application. Someone may be fine when licensed, then acquire the label later - should police go so far as an armed raid on the home to locate & confiscate any guns? What (as the lead article notes) constitutes serious enough "illness" to warrant active identification and confiscation? The definition of "mentally ill" is being expanded, covering what prior was considered normal; is it acceptable for the government to reverse licensing when the licensee has not changed in any objective way? Many "mental illnesses" are temporary, resulting from either transient biological phenomena or one-time social stress; the issue having passed and the patient returned to normal, the label remains - when does a "mental illness" label get eradicated? If treatment restores someone to normalcy with ongoing medical maintenance ("fine so long as he's on his pills"), is the patient indefinitely denied what is otherwise a right of "normal" people? Then there's association therewith. Is a mentally stable person prohibited weapons just because s/he lives with someone labeled "mentally ill", despite suitable securing of the arms? Finally, who gets to define "mentally ill"? Per the lead article, just being "anti-authoritarian" (in, say, a George Washington sense) could get one involuntarily labeled as such. Dictatorships are fond of so labeling, and ultimately eliminating, political opposition by application of the label. We can all agree that the just-plain-nuts should be disallowed guns, and all firearms licensing processes include some level of certification of sanity. Problem is, the anti-gun movement is leveraging that restriction to expand prohibition in ways which are honestly shocking to me.

by alan_cx 13y ago

ctdonath 13y ago

"Mentally ill" is a very broad issue, both in definition and temporal application. Someone may be fine when licensed, then acquire the label later - should police go so far as an armed raid on the home to locate & confiscate any guns? What (as the lead article notes) constitutes serious enough "illness" to warrant active identification and confiscation? The definition of "mentally ill" is being expanded, covering what prior was considered normal; is it acceptable for the government to reverse licensing when the licensee has not changed in any objective way? Many "mental illnesses" are temporary, resulting from either transient biological phenomena or one-time social stress; the issue having passed and the patient returned to normal, the label remains - when does a "mental illness" label get eradicated? If treatment restores someone to normalcy with ongoing medical maintenance ("fine so long as he's on his pills"), is the patient indefinitely denied what is otherwise a right of "normal" people? Then there's association therewith. Is a mentally stable person prohibited weapons just because s/he lives with someone labeled "mentally ill", despite suitable securing of the arms? Finally, who gets to define "mentally ill"? Per the lead article, just being "anti-authoritarian" (in, say, a George Washington sense) could get one involuntarily labeled as such. Dictatorships are fond of so labeling, and ultimately eliminating, political opposition by application of the label. We can all agree that the just-plain-nuts should be disallowed guns, and all firearms licensing processes include some level of certification of sanity. Problem is, the anti-gun movement is leveraging that restriction to expand prohibition in ways which are honestly shocking to me.