[pachyderm]

This seven-page Times article suggests that it is becoming easier for mentally ill people to get guns, if they appear to be on the mend. (Sometimes I am glad I never had a gun, because if I had, I might have used it.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/us/03guns.html?hp

[Flooded]

I think its too easy for ANYONE to get a gun

[Yoda]

I am glad I had a gun when I needed it.

Being mentally ill does not instantly equate to being irresponsible with a gun or violent. I will agree that some people should not have guns.

An article by DocJohn --->http://psychcentral.com/archives/violence.htm

In New Jersey, USA where i live, it is next to impossible to get a gun if you have had any type of mental illness. the background check they do is extremely extensive and if you have EVER been hospitalized or treated for mental illness, they will check and you'd have to get written permission from your dr saying you were mentally healthy to own and use a gun. While NJ is extreme, in Virginia, I was able to just walk into a gun range with my uncle and learn to shoot 2 months ago and I loved it.
Should I be able to get my own permit? I'm sure my dr would not give her permission, but my husband has handguns, rifles and shotguns here, so does it really matter?
Not all mentally ill people are unstable.

Jadedmoonbeam, thanks for pointing out that not all mentally ill people are unstable. Even those who are most likely are not long term, but go through periods where they are more stable than other periods of their lives.

In Cali, if you're put on a hold you are not allowed to buy a gun for 5 years. I don't think I'll ever make it to five years of stability, but then again I don't really want to because most likely it would lead to devastating events. I'd rather not go there and am grateful to the government for protecting me from myself for at least that long.

The reason behind this type of law is that statistically speaking suicide attempts get more violent with each attempt. So if you've been in the hospital for suicidality and especially attempted the authorities don't want you having access to the most deadly method of suicide.

Love and hugs,
Tara

[elliemay]

IMO, it's the ones that never present as mentally ill that you have to worry about.

[madisgram]

brings to mind hinkley... i'm sure brady wishes hinkley could not have bought a gun. we were lucky reagan lived. he was an umpteenth away from being killed.
jfk-r.i.p. assassinated prezz's create chaos in our government no matter what side of the fence you're on.
imho people with mental illness should have more screening than the population at large. i don't feel like i'd be singled out for discrimination. it just makes good sense. if it's determined by my pdoc i'm stable then i should be able to get a gun. but i don't wish for one...don't need one. tho some are used typically for sport.

[dragonfly2]

Jaded, I think the difference in the State's eyes between your husband having guns and you having them is a matter of who is ultimately responsible for their availability. If (God forbid), you were to harm someone (or yourself) with one of your husband's guns, HE could ultimately become liable for it because it was up to him to keep them in a secure place. Sort of like a bartender who is found negligible in a DUI case. If someone was clearly intoxicated and was served another drink, the bar can be held liable.

I think the high-profile cases like assassinations do make it harder for people with any sort of mental health history to get a gun, and often with good reason. But there are many cases where responsible people who are stable are being denied their constitutional right to bear arms.

Originally Posted by dragonfly2

Jaded, I think the difference in the State's eyes between your husband having guns and you having them is a matter of who is ultimately responsible for their availability. If (God forbid), you were to harm someone (or yourself) with one of your husband's guns, HE could ultimately become liable for it because it was up to him to keep them in a secure place. Sort of like a bartender who is found negligible in a DUI case. If someone was clearly intoxicated and was served another drink, the bar can be held liable.

I think the high-profile cases like assassinations do make it harder for people with any sort of mental health history to get a gun, and often with good reason. But there are many cases where responsible people who are stable are being denied their constitutional right to bear arms.

Good point and comparison dragonfly...I didn't think of that.

Isn't the Brady thing the whole reason the gun control laws got so strict?

and for the record, they are all locked away, bullets and guns separate, and i'm not even sure I could load it on my own. He is a responsible owner.