I am on to say something, and I want you to know where I’m coming from on this. I am mentally ill. I will never own a firearm personally. That’s ok with me, and I totally understand the reason for this.
The problem I see right now is that people are focusing on the tool used to commit atrocities-but it is not “socially acceptable” to point out the other thing that is always the same. Those who commit these acts are mentally ill.
As a person with mental illness, I want to say that I believe that we should be dealing with the issue of regulating the mentally ill, not firearms. There have been huge changes in the world of psychiatry over the past 30 years or so, and long term stays in the hospital have gone from being common to almost nonexistant. However, during my personal times of crisis, I NEEDED to be somewhere safe, for a longer period than a week, so that I could be watched and cared for until I came out the other side.
People with mental illness should be registered and monitored more carefully and thoroughly. There needs to be a requirement that I speak to someone from the mental health industry with an eye toward my stability on a monthly basis, I should not be allowed to own a gun, and if someone I live with owns a firearm, they should be required to show that they are taking steps to keep it out of my hands. Whether a gun lock, a class on gun safety, whatever.
You see, I have thought about the efficiency of delegalizing assault weapons and firearms, if I were to decide to become destructive and kill people on a large scale. Simply put, if I wanted to kill people, a ban on firearms would not stop me at all. Shall we next ban bleach and ammonia(mixed they make a potent poisonous gas)? How about hammers? I could kill someone with those, even a large group, should they be unarmed. How about cars? Give a person a car and a desire to commit an atrocity, and large crowds should beware.
This is all said to illustrate-banning a firearm in no way will protect people from the acts of the criminal or the mentally ill. If you want to “protect the public” from the acts of this minority, then keep close watch upon them. I would understand being registered as mentally ill, regular check-ins and even being sent to a long-term care facility in the event I refused to take care of myself. This is called holding me responsible for my own actions and choices.
Mental illness is not a license to act badly. If you have a mental illness and act badly, you should be incarcerated. Perhaps away from the “criminal” element, but you should still be away from society. Why on earth would you, instead, if a person acts poorly, hold everyone else responsible?
I do not believe the government wants to take your firearms to keep you “safer”. Being “safe” is an issue of personal responsibility, and if that is what the true desire is, then gun ownership, gun training, should be things we encourage as a society. If everyone is armed, then the power of the “scary assault rifle” gets quite a bit weaker.
What if the principal had been armed? What if there had been an armed guard or two in the halls of sandy hook? What if there had been a few audience members in CO that had been armed?
Even better, what if ALL of the responsible, law-abiding adults had been armed with a firearm during any one of these atrocities?
The government wants to disarm the people for a reason besides public safety, and it’s time we looked that fact in the face and called it for what it is. It’s time people started publicly seeking the truth of their motives.
I am mentally ill, and I say we need to watch the mentally ill more carefully, and encourage gun ownership by the public. These are the solutions to prevent “atrocities” by the mentally ill, while allowing the citizens to defend against any moves toward tyranny.
I’m not ashamed of being mentally ill, but I recognize it for what it is. Hold me personally responsible for my behavior and well-being, don’t hold everyone else responsible for it.