Would the same not also be true of people with epilepsy/narcolepsy, or of people who are gradually losing their sight? How do we protect public safety while allowing such people to continue operating heavy machinery? Once a person has been identified as having a significant risk factor for suicide or accident, can we ethically allow them to continue working in occupations where public safety is, quite literally, in their hands?
This is where we disagree, then. ISTM that visiting a doctor and asking for help with depression is a fair indicator that you may in fact be suffering from depression, and therefore are at an elevated risk of suicide. It’s not a matter of “sickos like you are subhuman and don’t deserve to own guns,” it’s “we are concerned for your safety (and/or the safety of others).”
The alternative is the occasional suicide of someone who had sought help for their depression, but was allowed to continue owning guns.
It doesn’t seem to me that suicide is of such epidemic proportions that it is necessary to abridge fundamental liberties in order to avert the sweeping pestilence of it.
AFAIK, the question on the background check form is “Have you been adjudicated as a mentally defective OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?”
Pretty sure by “committed”, they mean via court order, not voluntarily checking yourself into a treatment facility.
Well, more people die of firearm suicides than violent assaults/murders with guns, and people are frothing at the mouth to get rid of guns because of “gun volence”, so clearly some people believe that it is of those epidemic proportions.
I think a really key difference between low intelligence (and in many cases its close cousin, low information) and other disabilities is the matter of self-awareness. The Dunning-Kruger effect is basically a clinical formalization of that syndrome. The stupid are often judged harshly because of how damaging they can be when they exercise power, especially when it comes to voting and legislating.
The assumption is based upon verbal discourse. When people make assertions that they can’t substantiate and show no interest in finding out whether or not said assertion is actually true, that constitutes willful ignorance. It has little to do with intelligence.
Those jobs aren’t basic human rights, for one. For another, yeah, I think telling pilots they aren’t allowed to seek help will cause far more incidents like the Germanwings accident than if we let them fly and obtain treatment.
Treatment often works, you understand that, right? I can understand why you don’t want blind drivers on the road, but people with glasses should be able to drive.
That’s what I thought too, and it’s why I filled out the application honestly and turned it in. But that isn’t how it works, in Illinois at least. I could move 10 miles away to Missouri and buy a weapon easily.
It isn’t that big a deal to me, personally. But the principle of the matter is. There are vulnerable women in high-crime areas walking home in the middle of the night from their job at the bar who are being told they aren’t allowed the tools necessary to defend themselves. Because they did the right thing and tried to improve their mental health.
I agree that suicide among the general population isn’t so prevalent as to require abridging everyone’s liberties. However, among people with depression - treated or untreated - it is indeed a problem:
[quote=]
Depression is the psychiatric diagnosis most commonly associated with suicide.
Lifetime risk of suicide among patients with untreated depression ranges from 2.2% to 15%.
Some that 15% of patients with treated depression eventually die by suicide.
Depression is present in at least 50 percent of all suicides.
2% to 9 % of people that have been diagnosed with depression in their lifetime will go on to complete suicide, according to a Mayo Clinic study.
Those suffering from depression are at 25 times greater risk for suicidal than the general population.
[/quote]
Among a subgroup with such a high risk of suicide, don’t you agree that restricting access to items that facilitate impulsive suicide is a reasonable protective measure?
In a naive way? At a first glance? Yes. Giving it a little more thought, though…
I took a pill, and my suicidal thoughts vanished. You really don’t want to encourage depressed people to avoid seeking medical treatment. Not if you care about preventing suicide, at least.
Don’t know anyone who expects everyone to have remotely similar mental abilities.
The main thing to keep in mind: there’s a zillion different ways one person can be better than another in mental abilities. I’ve written dozen of research papers and have thousands of citations. But things that others find simple like English grammar are a black box to me. I’ve got relatives with minimal education who are absolute whizzes are certain things that I can’t comprehend. And on and on.
There is no one definition of mental ability. Not even close.
People know all about such variations and deal with it on a day to day basis.
This is a recent development, being a product of a post-industrial information age society. A century ago, you would have received a lot of shit if you weren’t strong enough to pull your weight (both figuratively and literally).
Maybe a flip side of the question is why are people relatively quick to realize their physical limitations, and yet most people seem to disregard their mental or educational limitations (especially on the internet). For example, most people would not consider themselves a match for a professional athlete. And yet people will routinely disregard the advice of highly intelligent experts on a particular topic.
The answer is that a lack of metal ability often includes poor judgment and reasoning skills, leading to bad decisions which can have extremely negative consequences.
"(xv) He or she has not been adjudicated as a person with a mental disability;
(xvi) He or she has not been involuntarily admitted into a mental health facility; " Are separate and additional requirements. So it’s not just those adjudicated or involuntarily committed.
A FOID card is a prerequisite to owning a firearm in Illinois, and to obtaining a CCL. At first I thought it might be a simple matter of applying for a waiver or getting my psychiatrist to write a letter explaining how I’m not actually a danger to anyone, but a lawyer I talked to made it sound like that was pretty unlikely. Guess I’ll wait until 2020, though that “if … more than 5 years ago submit the certification required under subsection (u) …” is news to me.
If it ever becomes a more pressing issue, or it turns out I’m banned for life in Illinois, like I said, I can always move to Missouri. They have no FOID cards and I think they even recently passed consitutional carry, so a driver’s license and NICS check should be all it takes there.
That sucks… I can see why they might choose to limit firearm access to the involuntarily committed, since in most states it nearly takes an act of the Legislature to commit someone, and they have to be truly incapable of functioning.
But voluntary admission? That seems a bit extreme and unfair.