Poll: Are Suicide Attempts Enough to Take Your Guns?

[fivepointstar]

I was just watching the news regarding the story where the Suspect shot at a Baltimore Police Officer with an SKS. THe news reports that he was honorably discharged from the Military but he had three suicide attempts one of them very recent.

It got me wondering.....this guy obviously does not care about his life. He also does not care about anyone elses life as well. Knowing that this person has attempted suicide, should his guns have confiscated and denied future gun purchases. I'm assuming that there was an Emergency Petition for his suicide attempts but there was no temporary committal to a hospital.

Suicide easy becomes homicide OR "suicide by cop" is possible.

I'm not exactly sure where I stand on this? How do you feel about this?? Everything is not black or white so I'm asking if you agree or disagree? There is no middle ground so please provide some feedback with your opinion. I don't think there is a right or wrong answer but you have to do the "right thing."

Is/Are suicide attempt(s) enough to confisicate the persons guns already in their possession?

 

[Ethan83]

Nope. If they're really determined to off themselves or anyone else, they don't need a gun to do it. They'll find another way - perhaps even a 'worse' one. RKBA is a natural right and shall not be infringed - I thought most of us have been over this?

Now, if somebody is certifiably crazy and needs to be institutionalized, that's another story. Suicide attempts surely may be part of that diagnosis. But, a suicide attempt by itself is not a reason to forcibly disarm somebody.

 

[trapture]

In Baltimore County if you threaten or even make a comment about it they can be confiscated. Not to get into details, I said something stupid, the wife called police and out the guns went. However if someone is really going to take their life they will find a way. There are plenty of buses and tall buildings and many other ways "OUT"

 

[axshon]

Suicide attempts are often a cry for help or a cry of hopelessness. If someone comes through that situation in their life, how would they then get back their rights or should they? Just don't think that its something tangible enough to take away that right.

I feel very bad for any PO involved in 'death by cop' but what needs to happen in a situation where a PO's life is threatened is pretty clear regardless of whether or not the person doing the threatening wants to die or not. Seems like a different situation.

I'm not a shrink or a cop, my opinion is free and worth what you are paying

 

[BlackBart]

Gotta say yes, if one is nuts enough to not value his own life he's certainly nuts enough to take the poor bastard standing next to him. It ain't that hard people.

 

[rseymorejr]

This is a tough one, aren't people who attempt suicide involuntarily commited for a short time? If so wouldn't someone have to declare that they are "not a danger to themselves or others" before being released? Should one suicide attempt void their rights for life? But 3 attempts? If he really wanted to kill himself you'd think he would have got it right by the third time.
I'm very leary of taking 2A rights away from anybody because of the whole give them an inch and they'll take a mile thing. I guess I just don't trust the lawmakers to make it that cut and dried when they write up the laws.

 

[fivepointstar]

Thanks for the open civilized discussion....this is what i makes this forum great. I'm glad we're getting both sides.

 

[Name Taken]

I'd say suicide attempt is an okay reason to take guns. Once someone far smarter then I clear's a person's mental state then they can have them back.

I'm not talking about "talking" about hurting yourself. If you take physical actions towards hurting yourself (like cutting, starting car in garage, smacking down a bottle of pills) then you do not need a gun.

I think it would be wrong for someone to call 911 saying "John said XYZ" and the police can take your weapons. However if you tell the police you want to hurt yourself and they see steps towards it then you should lose your firearms until medically cleared.

It's a gray area for sure. People get eval'd all the time and do not get commited to a hospital.

My other issue is what databases is this going to be kept in? It's like of like the committed question on a gun transfer form. What database is that kept in to cross check? If someone ends up in Sheppard Pratt unvoluntary does this get reported to the state or MSP? What federal agency gets reports of this? I dont think there is any.

 

[Lex Armarum]

I come down on the "no" side for a couple of reasons:

1. First and foremost in my mind is the slippery slope. Psychiatry and psychology are both psuedo-sciences. No I'm not channeling Tom Cruise. The treatment of the human mind involves some guess work to a degree because the human mind is not easily quantified or analyzed. Of course, when it comes down to blatant suicide attempts, I believe that the state has no business interfering with a person's decision to off themselves; laws against such are silly at best. There are other, more well-grounded and decisive laws that can be used to confiscate a person's arms if they act in a manner that is dangerous to those around them. Basing a decision on a person's natural rights on some subjective notion of mental illness and alleged suicide attempts is a dangerous road to trod down. Sooner or later, someone is going to start identifying political opponents as "mentally ill" and a "danger to society" and use that as an excuse to curtail their rights or incarcerate them.

2. Second thought that comes to mind is that the nature of the suicide attempt could encompass a number of methods and therefore, if you follow the idea of confiscating one's firearms because of a suicide attempt, you must also confiscate any manner of objects that one could use to off one's self. If someone attempts suicide by aspirin, should we then confiscate that person's guns and all of the aspirin in the house; create a watch-list registration for aspirin and created "prohibited person" categories for aspirin purchases?

Those are my two immediate objections to the idea that we should confiscate someone's firearms or otherwise curtail someone's rights on the basis of "suicide attempts."

 

[futureseabee]

I voted no, but as soon as i hit the post button i wanted to say yes. the person is obviously unstable and should not have access to weapons until they are stable or dead. an unstable person is a threat to society.
otoh, You have those like my friend Roger "Lambo" Lambie who know one knows the stuff that was happening in his head. RIP my friend. you are missed

 

[GNLaFrance]

Yes, because suicidal people are usually also homicidal.

But, rather than confiscating firearms, a better thing to do would be to bring the subject to a comfortable, neutral place and have them interviewed by competent mental health professionals who can make an unhurried diagnosis and recommend a course of treatment.

Unfortunately there's little money for this, because so much is shunted to the government and used to to buy votes and support professional politicians and bureaucrats in the manner to which they've been accustomed in the first place. Asking our rulers to dip into their coffers to help a bunch of people who will most likely vote for smaller, thriftier government once they've returned to rationality is a bit much, at least as far as they're concerned.

 

[montoya32]

I would say yes. Whether or not you recover from the suicide attempt, it obviously indicates a propensity for mental health issues. There are people whom have undiagnosed mental health issues, but have access to firearms simply because it is not known that they struggle with this type of thing. Only someone with less than adequate mental health would attempt to take their own life or the life of someone else. I would rather see someone have a gun that had a drug conviction or substance abuse issue, then someone who showed/shows signs of wanting to hurt themselves or others.

 

[mbz300sdl]

I say no and I also feel that just because someone doesn't value his own life doesn't mean they don't value someone else.

 

[Rattlesnake46319]

No. The slippery slope as Rusty mentioned.

And thank you, Seabee, for reminding us of Lambo.

 

[fivepointstar]

I voted no, but as soon as i hit the post button i wanted to say yes. the person is obviously unstable and should not have access to weapons until they are stable or dead. an unstable person is a threat to society.
otoh, You have those like my friend Roger "Lambo" Lambie who know one knows the stuff that was happening in his head. RIP my friend. you are missed

damn dude...this hits home!

I wish Roger called me or had touched based with me before this happened.

RIP

 

[BadShot25]

I vote no. They don't need a gun to off themselves. They can also find a way to obtain a firearm if they really wanted to commit a crime just like every other criminal out there.

 

[futureseabee]

No. The slippery slope as Rusty mentioned.

And thank you, Seabee, for reminding us of Lambo.

damn dude...this hits home!

I wish Roger called me or had touched based with me before this happened.

RIP

Yes. he was a great man and a great American Patriot. I would give my right arm to have been able to try and help him. I have been thinking about him a lot. only talked with him 4 times or so but he was a larger than life character, definitely one that leaves an impression on you

 

[MDFF2008]

I voted yes, but I believe that it should only be temporary. While it is true a person who truly wants to die will not be stopped by the lack of a gun, it's also true that a person who truly wants to die will not "attempt" it, they will do it.

There is a need to identify the problem that is making the person that way, and figure out how to treat it. We may not fully understand what causes these diseases, but we do know there is a biological role. If we have a warning or an attempt, it probably means they don't really want to die, but they don't know how to ask for help, or they have asked for help and gotten brushed aside. This is their last cry for help, and since psych conditions don't always improve right away, if they don't see results it might drive them to do it for real, and like it or not, suicide by gun is fast, and leaves no possibility of changing your mind.

Once the person is stable, their guns should be restored. It should not be a life sentence, and psychs should not use it to promote their own agendas. That's like preying on sick people.

Sadly, the last two are me living in a dream world.

 

[Seagrave1963]

I voted "yes" with the thought that the confiscation would be temporary. Suicide is often referred to as a "permanent solution to a temporary crisis." If so, why shouldn't a firearm, or that manner any method to accomplish the "task" be removed from the individuals reach -- hence the 72 hour commitment. The poll seems to assume that the removal of firearms is permanent -- if so I would vote no. However, a "cooling down" period is reasonable.

 

[Oreo]

As I often do, I agree with Rusty. Confiscation sounds good at first glance but just under the surface lurks a host of problems.

There's more then one way to skin a cat. Perhaps this is a better place for family & friends to step in & do what is necessary, to include removing firearms till the person is no longer a danger to self. .gov isn't the answer to all problems. Furthermore, this is a clear case of "liberty's dangers". We aren't a group likely to sacrifice liberty for safety.