confidentcrescent
No bio...
User ID: 423
confidentcrescent
5d ago
Frequently (by no means all the time but often enough) that's grossly insufficient.
Why? You seem to be asserting that a risk of someone having a repeat episode while having a gun is unacceptable. I do not agree with this; disagreement with this is a primary reason behind why I'm against gun control. Freedom means authority figures should have neither the responsibility or authority to stop people from making shit decisions.
The modal involuntary patient [is] something like a schizophrenic who is so severe they just can't feed or care for themselves. Someone that disorganized isn't safe to own anything remotely dangerous, and if they had the financial ability to own a car (most don't) they probably shouldn't.
I agree this person is not safe to let out with guns, but the guns are irrelevant. The person you describe is not safe to let out, full stop. Not with guns or a car or even just their own fists.
The fact of the matter is that the vast vast majority of people who are involuntarily committed* really should not be allowed to own guns. Failures are rare. Should you find one (for instance someone who did a shit ton of PCP for ten years and then spent 50 years not using PCP and wants some guns) the expungement process works pretty well.
I do have disagreements regarding the place of suicidal people here, but I'll put those aside.
I don't trust that all of this is the case currently or that it will remain the case. The particular case described in the OP already does not look like the expungement process working well and I do not expect this to improve. There is a large group standing right behind your reasonable safety concerns who wants any possible excuse to keep guns away from people, and given your previous top-level post I'm sure you're well aware that doctors' politics lean heavily towards that group.
You're thinking of this system in the hands of an impartial party. I am expecting this system to be in the hands of an anti-gun crusader sooner or later and want it hardened against misuse.
confidentcrescent
5d ago
I'd like the guy to go home to his guns after the medication works. This is a lesser violation of his rights than either option you have presented and no more complicated or expensive than the current system.
I can't speak for Nybbler but I read his comments as indicating he wants the same.
This seems to be a more specific group than previously discussed, so I'm not sure why data on them would matter to a discussion of involuntarily admitted patients as a whole. I also do not agree with rights being removed at a statistical level. Temporary violations of rights without due process are unfortunately necessary, but for a more permanent removal a just system requires an individual and adversarial process.
I'm more concerned about the (lack of) process here, but given it's a right I'd accept taking guns away at the same level which would justify locking them up for an extended time. If you wouldn't feel comfortable tossing them in a jail cell for their behavior I don't think it's bad enough to take their guns either.
Leading doctors in the US recently tried to distribute scarce health resources (covid-19 vaccines) by race. If that was non-political then non-political covers a lot I would consider political. I am concerned that some doctors will involuntarily admit a person for the purpose of getting them away from their guns long-term (i.e. past the immediate episode), and your word isn't sufficient to convince me that they aren't willing to do this.
I was under the impression these people do tend to get occasionally dragged in and involuntarily committed, then are eventually let go again.
More options
Context Copy link