The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old June 16, 2014, 05:45 PM   #1
Mosin-Marauder
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2014
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,320
Can Someone with a history of depression own a gun?

Just a question. I heard that if you had a history of any mental illness you can't legally own a firearm, is this true?
__________________
Proud owner of three (four-ish) pieces of history!
K-31, Mosin-Nagant M91/30, M24/47 Mauser, Norinco SKS.
"You might as well appeal against a thunderstorm..."
William Tecumseh Sherman
Mosin-Marauder is offline  
Old June 16, 2014, 05:57 PM   #2
filthy phil
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 22, 2013
Location: Tomball Tejas
Posts: 105
If committed involuntarily
__________________
glocks gen4 :21, gen 3 17tb, 19, 30s (×2) , sig tacpac 1911,
colt 6920(x2), cia underfolder ak, npap underfolder
filthy phil is offline  
Old June 16, 2014, 05:57 PM   #3
mehavey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,869
See Question 11.f in the attached:
http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/downl...f-f-4473-1.pdf

Read it for exactly what it says: nothing more, nothing less.

Last edited by mehavey; June 16, 2014 at 06:08 PM.
mehavey is offline  
Old June 16, 2014, 05:59 PM   #4
Mosin-Marauder
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2014
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,320
Okay thank you for your help guys.
__________________
Proud owner of three (four-ish) pieces of history!
K-31, Mosin-Nagant M91/30, M24/47 Mauser, Norinco SKS.
"You might as well appeal against a thunderstorm..."
William Tecumseh Sherman
Mosin-Marauder is offline  
Old June 17, 2014, 11:30 AM   #5
Sierra280
Junior member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2013
Location: Gardnerville, NV
Posts: 569
It's perfectly legal to own firearms while having mental problems , so long as you have not been adjudicated as such.
Sierra280 is offline  
Old June 17, 2014, 11:47 AM   #6
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
Adjudication both protects due process and sets a legal standard for how mentally ill mentally ill is.

Someone who manages their illness, has never been in trouble, and thus isn't dangerous shouldn't be prohibited, should they?
JimDandy is offline  
Old June 17, 2014, 12:40 PM   #7
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
The court hearing(s) that determine whether or not you are placed in the prohibited person category are there to (presumptively) look at all the evidence, and determine if your condition is a danger to yourself and or others.

Unless, and until that happens, you can legally own firearms (absent other disqualifying factors -illegal drug use, commission of, and conviction for felony crimes, etc.).

you can have mental health problems, but until they reach the conditions specified in the law, the law does not prohibit you owning firearms.

There are a good many people with problems, who can legally own firearms, and who probably should not be allowed access to firearms, BUT until a court decrees it, their legal right exists, within the framework of the law, the same as everyone else.

Each and every individual is different. And each case should be judged individually. There is currently a push underway to automatically lump everyone who might be described as having a "mental illness" (a hugely broad category) into the category of prohibited person. They are making assumptions, that I personally disagree with.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is online now  
Old June 17, 2014, 12:45 PM   #8
Kirkpatrick
Member
 
Join Date: October 15, 2011
Location: Alabama
Posts: 95
From a diagnostic stance, mourning can be indistinguishable from depression. Most people are going to mourn the loss of their mother when she dies. A person filling out a routine mental health screening form while in the waiting room for a routine check up, after the immediate death of their mother, could easily be labeled and diagnosed as depressed by a medical professional. Congratulations, you are now medically and legally depressed. Since medicare or the VA covered part of the cost of the medical procedure, there is a federal record on file in a data base that can be cross referenced. Thus you would now and forever have "a history of mental illness".

None of what I have written here is not hyperbole or an extreme example of the system failing.
Kirkpatrick is offline  
Old June 17, 2014, 12:51 PM   #9
Kirkpatrick
Member
 
Join Date: October 15, 2011
Location: Alabama
Posts: 95
From a diagnostic stance, mourning can be indistinguishable from depression. Most people are going to mourn the loss of their mother when she dies. A person filling out a routine mental health screening form while in the waiting room for a routine check up, after the immediate death of their mother, could easily be labeled and diagnosed as depressed by a medical professional. Congratulations, you are now medically and legally depressed. Since medicare or the VA covered part of the cost of the medical procedure, there is a federal record on file in a data base that can be cross referenced. Thus you would now and forever have "a history of mental illness".

None of what I have written here is not hyperbole or an extreme example of the system failing.
Kirkpatrick is offline  
Old June 17, 2014, 01:28 PM   #10
Glenn E. Meyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
While folks have discussed the Fed rules on adjudication, I might suggest you check state laws also.

For example:

https://www.governor.ny.gov/nysafeact/mental-health-faq
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old June 17, 2014, 01:37 PM   #11
mehavey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,869
Who Can be Reported?
All persons receiving mental health treatment services from any of the
four types of mental health professionals identified in the law, regardless
of the setting in which they work, may be subjects of reports.

What About Patient Privacy?
Under HIPAA, because these informational disclosures are required by law
[so much for HIPAA-meh], they can be made without the patient’s
consent. HIPAA permits disclosures of protected health information without
the authorization or consent of the individual to the extent that such
disclosure is required by law and the disclosure complies with the
requirements of that law.

Given that EVERYthing is becoming medical CYA, why would ANY reasonably sane-but-just-needing-some-help person EVER consider going to his/her doctor?

(But since this is New York what more should I expect in these times of your-information-is-private-unless-I-want-it.)
mehavey is offline  
Old June 18, 2014, 10:46 AM   #12
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
Quote:
..why would ANY reasonably sane-but-just-needing-some-help person EVER consider going to his/her doctor?
Now there's a question....

What is Catch 22 (adjusted for inflation) up to now Catch 88? or Catch 2014?

Isn't it interesting how few Americans know that the law that "protects" the medical records privacy, requires that privacy be broken if the govt requests the information? Don't worry folks, its only part of your information they will get. Only the part they need...
If you have ever worked where a security clearance was necessary, you probably aren't surprised....

One outfit I once worked for did contractor work for the Govt, at a govt site. A security clearance was a requirement. Something a couple levels above "top secret". Not even remotely an "instant check", average time to get one was 10months to a year+.

Now, the work was a bit stressful, and to help us all out, the company had a councilor service, which they urged us to use, (free, of course) if we were having trouble dealing with...anything, really. Work, family, finances, what ever the problem, they were there to help. Pretty nice folks, actually.

Oh, and of course, what you talked to the doc about (councilor / doc / "shrink"), was totally confidential. That is a law, you know. Even your boss can't find out.

BUT....
We learned pretty quick (after a couple of examples, people we knew, and worked with..)...we learned that if you did what the company said they wanted you to do, (talk to their shrinks) to get help when you needed it, essentially, you lost your job.

Except you didn't. But you did lose your paycheck. Because, while the law kept the company (and the govt, mostly) from knowing WHAT you went to get help for, and what you said to the docs, the law required the fact that you were getting "help" to be reported. Your job was with the company, but the clearance came from the govt.

And when the company reported to the govt that you were "getting help", AS THEY WERE REQUIRED BY LAW TO DO..., the govt. pulled your security clearance. One fellow I knew, went to the company shrink, because he was having some marital problems, and just needed someone to talk to, and the company service was, after all, free.

He wound up in a curious legal limbo, after his clearance was pulled. He was not fired. He was not laid off (and he had not quit), BUT without a clearance, he could not go to work, and since he could not go to work, he got no paycheck! And he couldn't get unemployment, or any other kind of public assistance, because he HAD a job (and a rather well paying one). Except he wasn't being paid....

And, in typical catch 22 fashion, if you got a certain form from the govt, and filed it, the govt had 90 days to explain why they pulled your clearance, and make a judgement on it. But to get that form, you had to go to a govt office in a location that required a security clearance to get in!!!!!

My friend spent many months in "durance vile", with him and his family living on the generosity of his extended family. His father-in-law happened to be a shift manager in the company, and with his clearance was able to get the paperwork, so the process of forcing a decision could be initiated. My friend was eventually re-instated (clearance returned), but the whole thing left a VERY bad taste in the mouths of all who knew about the situation.

I mention this, to point out that a system where your med records are both legally protected, AND (somewhat) open to the govt at the same time, exists, and has been in use for decades, if not longer.

THIS is the real danger to gun owners. If you get help (TREATMENT) for a "mental health" issue, your privacy about what your problem was, and what your treatment was, will be protected, (provided you are not in the "dangerous to self/others category, if you are, other rules kick in), BUT the fact that you got treatment for a mental health issue will not be private!

I can see a worst case scenario where the law (govt) paints us all with the broadest possible brush, and determines that "mentally ill" people should ALL be prohibited persons as it pertains to firearms ownership. FOR LIFE.

They won't care about you, or what your issue was, or the fact that you were NEVER a threat to anyone, or even if you are pronounced "cured". ALL that will matter is something put you in the "mentally ill" category, and once there, it will be no guns for you, for the rest of your life.

Don't scoff, my friends, it may be a remote possibility, but I do see it as a possibility. The might even model the law after that masterpiece of legal idiocy created by Mr Lautenberg, making it so that if you have ever received "treatment" (councilling), in your life, in the past, you lose your right to a firearm. Certainly I believe some folks in politics will try to make this a law.

Farfetched? perhaps. But so was the idea of a misdemeanor conviction stripping you of your rights, at one time equally farfetched, and yet, today, it is a fact, and has been for quite a few years.

Here's a situation, not realistic (at THIS TIME), but possible down the road, if they get their way...
Grandma died when you were 13. You were devastated. Whole family was. All went to councilling. A normal thing.
Now, you are 48, and thanks to the "new mental health" laws, the govt discovers that since you got mental health treatment you are now a prohibited person, and your name is in the databases as a firearms owner (thank you background check/registration laws).
Gun owner + mental health "issues" = dangerous nut job.
A SWAT team executes a no knock raid on you in the middle of the night to sieze your weapons.

I don't see that kind of thing ending well....

Keep an eye on the rhetoric, but scrutinize what ever they propose with an electron microscope! Don't let them pass the law(s) giving them the authority to do anything like I have described above. Otherwise, we'll all be in a very bad place.....
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is online now  
Old June 18, 2014, 06:08 PM   #13
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP
The court hearing(s) that determine whether or not you are placed in the prohibited person category are there to (presumptively) look at all the evidence, and determine if your condition is a danger to yourself and or others.

Unless, and until that happens, you can legally own firearms (absent other disqualifying factors -illegal drug use, commission of, and conviction for felony crimes, etc.).

you can have mental health problems, but until they reach the conditions specified in the law, the law does not prohibit you owning firearms.
That's the way it's supposed to be, and that's the way it was until a couple of years ago. Since the Virginia Tech shooting and others that followed, with the sudden "uptick" in awareness of mental health as a major factor in mass shootings, the Veterans Administration has put a lot of stress on trying to address PTSD (and depression, which may be related). The problem is, whether or not it's true at ALL VA hospitals and clinics, there is a strong perception that anyone who seeks help for PTSD will immediately and automatically be reported to NICS and put on the prohibited list. No adjudication, no involuntary commitment, no due process ... just an administrative protocol.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old June 18, 2014, 11:46 PM   #14
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
Quote:
there is a strong perception that anyone who seeks help for PTSD will immediately and automatically be reported to NICS and put on the prohibited list. No adjudication, no involuntary commitment, no due process ... just an administrative protocol.
I don't doubt you a bit. But, is the "strong perception" the actual reality? And is it system wide? Officially approved policy? Or just "policy" done with the administration's "wink and nod" and no official written policy?

If it is actually happening as it is being perceived as happening, then I would regard this as a violation of rights, and law.

I can tell you that the VA has been in favor of no guns for "at risk" individuals for many years. Over a decade ago, before the recent "awareness" of the role of mental illness in current mass shootings, the VA would ..discourage gun ownership, but they didn't do anything to put you on the prohibited person's list.

I knew a fellow in that situation then. Was seeking help from the VA for medical and mental problems (VietNam era vet). The VA essentially told him, if he wanted their help, get rid of his guns. Otherwise, they would not help him. (possibly, even likely not the official policy at the time, but it was done, in this one particular case, at least).

The VA (particularly the people in the administrative end of things are currently on the hook for a LOT of misdeeds. They shouldn't be let off the hook on this, either.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is online now  
Old June 21, 2014, 07:57 PM   #15
TDL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2013
Posts: 317
This isn't the only Catch 22.


If you asked me a few years ago I would have supported more compulsorily mental health counseling at the sign of serious trouble (short of involuntary medication or commitment for not adjudicated dangerous). I am opposed to this now due to the way the databases are working with HIPAA. In fact I wonder how many parents might be reticent knowing that databases can be cracked


But I have also shifted my view on protective orders. If you asked me a few years ago I would have supported very very low probative burdens, low cost, and high speed to getting a protective order against another person.

Now, knowing that this can be used as a tool to attack a persons rights, my view is the burden should be high.
TDL is offline  
Old June 21, 2014, 10:17 PM   #16
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by TDL
Now, knowing that this can be used as a tool to attack a persons rights, my view is the burden should be high.
Agreed, very high.

In fact, I wonder if there should be any such thing as a protective order ... since they don't work. In the past five years, just in my county there have been multiple instances of people who were subject to protective orders nonetheless obtaining a firearm and blowing away the wife or ex-wife. Protective orders aren't even useful as toilet paper.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old June 22, 2014, 11:02 AM   #17
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
Protective orders (restraining orders) are great tools for harassing someone. They are cheap (relatively), and fairly easy to obtain. All it takes, essentially, is your articulable fear, and some supporting circumstantial evidence. And in some cases, protective orders are issued on the fear alone.

As an actual protective measure, they aren't worth the paper they are printed on. Anyone willing to do you harm is not going to be stopped or deterred by one more piece of paper.

Chamberlin got a "protective order" at Munich in 38. That worked out well.....
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is online now  
Old June 22, 2014, 06:41 PM   #18
Glenn E. Meyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
It is commonly reported that you are in more danger after the restraining order is issued.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old February 4, 2017, 08:35 PM   #19
jackbang
Junior Member
 
Join Date: February 4, 2017
Posts: 1
Gun owner BEFORE being diagnosed with depression

I live in Hawaii and my question is....What if you are a legal gun owner and you were diagnosed with depression due to alcohol abuse years later? Do you have to surrender your firearm?
jackbang is offline  
Old February 4, 2017, 08:48 PM   #20
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP
I mention this, to point out that a system where your med records are both legally protected, AND (somewhat) open to the govt at the same time, exists, and has been in use for decades, if not longer.

THIS is the real danger to gun owners. If you get help (TREATMENT) for a "mental health" issue, your privacy about what your problem was, and what your treatment was, will be protected, (provided you are not in the "dangerous to self/others category, if you are, other rules kick in), BUT the fact that you got treatment for a mental health issue will not be private!

I can see a worst case scenario where the law (govt) paints us all with the broadest possible brush, and determines that "mentally ill" people should ALL be prohibited persons as it pertains to firearms ownership. FOR LIFE.

They won't care about you, or what your issue was, or the fact that you were NEVER a threat to anyone, or even if you are pronounced "cured". ALL that will matter is something put you in the "mentally ill" category, and once there, it will be no guns for you, for the rest of your life.

Don't scoff, my friends, it may be a remote possibility, but I do see it as a possibility. The might even model the law after that masterpiece of legal idiocy created by Mr Lautenberg, making it so that if you have ever received "treatment" (councilling), in your life, in the past, you lose your right to a firearm. Certainly I believe some folks in politics will try to make this a law.
We have only to look at what's been happening with the VA and, more recently, Social Security to see the direction this is going. Both agencies are reporting people to NICS as mentally incompetent solely because the person has appointed a designated recipient for their pension checks. NO HEARING, NO ADJUDICATION.

Many years ago, someone on one of the "gun" forums posted that if you ever need mental health assistance, go to a shrink in another town, use an assumed name, and pay in cash. This advice is proving to be very prescient.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old February 4, 2017, 11:56 PM   #21
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 8,274
I'm not a Doctor,lawyer,or shrink. I don't know what I'm talking about,and anything I say could be wrong! That's a disclaimer.
I don't know if this makes a difference,but "Depression" has multiple meanings.It CAN actually be an illness,chemical imbalance. But it can also be a "mood disorder"
We all go through grief and loss. "Depression" IS a stage of the Kubler-Ross grief process.Its also perfectly normal.

Parenting is tough,homes break up,some parents are better or worse than others.That has a lot to do with the social skills and level of maturity an adult person might have.
A whole lot of pain,angst,suffering and destructive behavior can come from being a 15 year old in a 30 year old body.
One recipe for depression is to be unskilled in dealing with fear and anger.A diet of eating fear and anger will lead to a weight gain of depression.

What CAN happen,is a person can recognize A) This is not working B) I do not seem to be finding the answer alone C) Perhaps someone can help.

Once that occurs,it is possible for a person to make progress on the path of growing up.
Motivation to continue growing up comes from life just working better.

The person who on their own reaches for some help BEFORE they hurt themselves or someone else GROWS.

The person who keeps their jaws clenched and says "I'm fine,I don't need that" Might be right...or not.

But I'd rather go fishing with a person who has owned their problems and grown through them than a person who denies their problems,and sees them as other people problems.

There ARE,for example,paranoid schizophrenics that I can have compassion for.They live in an often painful alternative reality. It might not be good for them to be armed.

Don't get me wrong,the person who IS a 15 year old in a 30 year old body CAN be dangerous. They can behave in a way that indicates...well,maybe a 15 year old is not ready for an AK-47,.They might demonstrate that on the Jerry Springer show.

But making a phone call and asking for help is something we should encourage.

Now,as far as our Veterans:

First,I'm not a Veteran. I don't know what I'm talking about.I'm respectfully giving my best,even if I'm wrong.

These Men and Women go where they are sent,and do the job they are told to do. Multiple deployments,some lose their spouses and families.Some lose the jobs they had when deployed.
They experience the horrific things that come with the job. I won't even try to describe what I cannot know.
Many have had the organ "Brain" slammed around,multiple times.
When we,the non Veterans,and politicians, view our Veterans with fear and suspicion,rather than Respect,and maybe just a little appreciation and compassion, When We,and our lawmakers,or more likely UNELECTED,BUREAUCRAT authors of regulations....treat our Veterans with something like:

"So,when you experienced that IED blast,and what it did to your friends,do you have any unhappy after effects?" or " How do you feel about the foreign troop you were training who started shooting in class" .How do you feel about coming home to see your family,but its different now?"

What sane,normal person would NOT have some wounds to their Soul?

When a stupid idea like A) get the Veteran to reveal pain B) then pronounce Him/Her a flawed,defective Human Being,forbidden to keep His/Her guns????

It is particularly despicable for anti-gunners to prey on the vulnerabilities of these Veterans. To inject platform politics into confidentiality of a relationship with a councilor betrays and destroys the essential element of Trust that MUST form for a councilor to be effective. So our Veteran is robbed again.

Our society,who treats our Veterans this way,is a large part of why over 20 of our Veterans a day kill themselves.

Not just a cute slogan, "Thank You For Your Service!" recognize and respect them.

Dignity. The Dignity of a Home,a Job,.. Coming Home..And sometime,quiet space for solitude as necessary. Resources for Veterans to help Veterans.
We need to open our ears and listen to Veterans tell us what will help.I don't think they will ask for too much.Maybe that we just keep our promises.

Stop treating our Veterans as freaks. ESPECIALLY,our Federal Government and theVA.

Last edited by HiBC; February 5, 2017 at 12:46 AM.
HiBC is offline  
Old February 5, 2017, 12:31 AM   #22
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiBC
But making a phone call and asking for help is something we should encourage.
In an ideal world, I would agree with you. But we're not living in an ideal world. Until we can be assured -- absolutely, completely -- that we won't be permanently disarmed just for picking up the phone and seeking help to navigate through a rough patch in life, I'm not prepared to universally encourage making the phone call. I'm more inclined to suggest exploring other alternatives.

My wife died suddenly and unexpectedly just over three years ago, and a couple of months later I almost died due to a heart condition that materialized out of nowhere. Was I "depressed"? I don't know, but I sure wasn't a happy camper. But whenever you check in for an appointment at the VA one of the questions the intake person asks is "Are you feeling sad today, even a little bit?"

I have trained myself to answer "No" to that question. I don't care if my house burned down, my dog died, and my pickup truck got run over by an eighteen wheeler, as far as the VA is concerned I'm just singin' in the rain.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old February 5, 2017, 01:09 AM   #23
Vic1951
Member
 
Join Date: January 30, 2017
Location: I am in the South
Posts: 30
I have been on anti depressants for about 20 or more years and I own a lot of guns. Depression does not manifest itself as sometimes shown in the media and TV. My depression just results in me feeling fatigued all day and obsessive negative thinking about things that can happen to me. No danger to anyone and I can live and function without the meds but I feel better with them.

BTW, my insomnia is classified as a mental illness too.
Vic1951 is offline  
Old February 5, 2017, 01:13 AM   #24
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 8,274
Aguila,absolutely.I hear you.

Please understand,when I speak of "encouraging" I'm not talking about lovely sirens singing to passing sailors to crash their ships on the rocks! No deception,no suckerbait,no betrayal.
If a person cannot Trust those he asks for help,there is no hope.(At least for help from that source)

I mean a different kind of encourage.

And I get it,what may be True, is that asking for an ear to listen and a reality check could screw your life up.

Government often ruins whatever it touches.

The 10th Amendment needs to be observed
HiBC is offline  
Old February 5, 2017, 01:32 AM   #25
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
Quote:
But whenever you check in for an appointment at the VA one of the questions the intake person asks is "Are you feeling sad today, even a little bit?"
Certainly an innocent sounding question, and not a problem in itself. The problem is what they make of the answer.

If one were to answer totally honestly, how could one answer anything but "just a little bit" sad or unhappy??

You're at the VA, (or the doctor's office) if you didn't have some kind of problem, you wouldn't BE there. Maybe that's just me, but I'm never happy about needing to see a doctor.

Trouble is, if you are honest about that, they put you in a little box marked "depressed" or some other label de jour. Same box contains people who are actually mentally ill and unstable. And, of course, to be "fair" everyone in that box must be the same, and treated the same, right?

NOT RIGHT!, but its what often happens.

Quote:
BTW, my insomnia is classified as a mental illness too.
IF you look at the standard medical texts published in the 50s, you can find homosexuality listed as a mental disorder. (or so I've heard)

Things change over time, and what is, or isn't a mental illness depends on who is making the list.

I once read a (pre-internet) story about a future society where any interest in firearms was considered a mental disorder and gun magazines were pornography.

We aren't there just yet, but I know of some people who would happily take us there, if they could, and they are trying....
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is online now  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.11234 seconds with 8 queries