Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Who determines what is and what isn't mentally ill? Does being mentally ill automatically mean the person is dangerous?

According to a Wednesday release from Manchin's office, the Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act is designed to prevent convicted criminals and mentally ill individuals from obtaining guns, while maintaining Americans' constitutional right to bear arms. Existing background checks are also expanded to gun shows and online gun sales, which previously stood as loopholes in the system.

by on Apr. 15, 2013 at 11:00 AM
Replies (71-78):
by Mahinaarangi on Apr. 15, 2013 at 7:40 PM

mentally ill means mentally sick....not having a mental disorder.

My cousin is bipolar...she isnt sick or ill, just a person living with a mental disorder.

However she should never be given a gun or access to one.  The risk of taking her own life or that of others will always be there :-(

by on Apr. 15, 2013 at 7:42 PM

 Clinical depression is different from being depressed. Feeling anxious is different from having a diagnosed anxiety disorder. As I said, it';s a matter of degrees. Many people feel "X" not everyone of those have a clinical diagnosis. Just trying to clarify.

Quoting muslimahpj:

Depression and anxiety are mental illnesses.

Quoting Ms.KitKat:


Quoting Euphoric:

 I have depression and anxiety. I know that personally I'm not dangerous.

 Lots of people are depressed and have anxiety. That does not mean you are mentally ill.  It's a matter of degrees.  


by Emerald Member on Apr. 15, 2013 at 8:18 PM

I have no agenda. I was reading about mental illness and this post came up. So many people want a 'mental illness registry' so those labeled will not be able to own guns. Problem with a blanket law like includes those that pose no danger to themselves or anyone else.

Why are you going off the deep end here?

Quoting lancet98:

That is ridiculous.

You have no understanding of the axis system for diagnosis of these disorders.

'Mental illness', strictly speaking, refers to the 'major mental illnesses' - schizophrenia, bipolar, and the most severe forms of depression.  'Mental illness' is a term reserved for severe disorders that involve a major life disruption and the potential for serious consequences when untreated.

Your list consists of a hotchpotch of genetic disorders, medical disorders, circulatory disorders, pervasive developmental disorders, and speech disorders.

Clearly, you have an amazing agenda.   Why not share it in a somewhat more honest and less devious fashion?

I think most people are intelligent enough to realize that there's a little bit of a difference between a problem with staying awake than with an untreated paranoid schizophrenic who has severe impulsivity and a desire to harm others.  

Your comments are patently ridiculous and extremely tangential to the issue.

Quoting EireLass:

Amnesia...anorexia nervoxa...Aspergers...ADHD...Binge eating disorder...Downs syndrome, Dyslexia...male erection disorder...narcolepsy...pica...stuttering....etc. These are listed as mental illness'.

Quoting survivorinohio:

I think that the mentally ill need to be closely monitored by an outpatient system that also goes in home often.  I think that unmonitored mental illness has the potential for danger.

by on Apr. 15, 2013 at 8:30 PM
2 moms liked this

I dont think metally ill should be allowed to have guns.

by Platinum Member on Apr. 15, 2013 at 9:34 PM

 I'd say only the mentally ill who have been judged a danger to self or others, and only the mental illnesses associated with psychosis...except for one little wrinkle.... 

We'd  have to actually diagnose people - right now, the gap between appearance of symptoms of schizophrenia and diagnosis averages ten years.   That's a long time in which to get worse.

Most of the mass shooters were known to be mentally ill, but  again, it's not just mental illness in general. 

The risk factors for violence are - paranoia, violent delusions, being early in the course of the illness/young age, a history of violence, and substance abuse.

A psychiatrist in another country (W.  Europe) was just cited and sentenced criminally, for not acting appropriately in the treatment of a  mentally ill patient who killed a person.    

Among other things, it was charged that she failed to take action despite many extremely concerning reports of the family and the social service agency that had contact with the patient.  She persisted in only providing counseling instead of adding medication (which was deemed necessary in that individual's case).

Normally I don't believe psychiatrists should be held STRICTLY liable ('stricty' being a legal term with a specific meaning - that if something goes wrong, it's their fault, even if it was someone else's fault...kinda wierd, but there it is) for violence, but when they exhibit negligence and don't act despite multiple reports or the patient having severely threatening behavior I can agree with what took place in that country.

In other words, when it is obvious that it is a dangerous situation and no action is even attempted, I think it's approriate to punish them.

However, in the US, the problem is often that the psychiatrist begs the hospital to not discharge the person and the hospital releases the person and some tragedy occurs.   In the US, I wouldn't assume it was the psychiatrist's fault unless some specific negligence is proven.   I'm constantly amazed with what psychiatrists have to deal with in the US - they're kinda damned if they do and damned if they don't, as the saying goes.

I think she was given a year suspended sentence and suspended from her job for that year.

Fenton(aurora shooter had one contact with Fenton), I believe, 'did as her job requires' in that she notified campus police, but what 'her job requires' was defined by her and was an inadequate plan by national standards.

When the police offered to pick him up, she declined because he was withdrawing from school.  Other emergency response teams have already responded by saying that is when you jump into overdrive.

Many of the failures to respond to violent patients have been carefully analyzed and quite often, they are due to a failure to understand how existing laws and policies affect the situation.


Quoting Tag3.0:

I dont think metally ill should be allowed to have guns.



by Ruby Member on Apr. 15, 2013 at 9:47 PM

Not all mentally ill people are remotely dangerous. But several are and it is reflected by their behavior before they are diagnosed.

by on Apr. 15, 2013 at 11:52 PM
I have PTSD and am not a danger to myself or others. I manage my PTSD through my writing since I'm a professional author. I haven't taken drugs since I was 15. I was under the impression that the mentally ill cannot have access to guns.
by on Apr. 16, 2013 at 12:27 AM

 I do not assume someone is dangerous because of a mental illness but I've been attacked by a bi-polar schizophrenic and it's hard for that to not cross my mind.

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)