I'm confused, are the sane people the ones with or without guns?

The gun rights activists are the ones suggesting that anyone with a diagnosed mental illness should be locked away ( ie deprived of all their rights ) - so that they can effectively exercise their 2nd amendment rights.

While people active in promoting health care and improved outcomes for the mentally ill do not go around shouting about it.

Considering that something like half of Americans are believed to suffer from one mental illness or another, I'm not sure this is a practical solution.

Source please on "half of Americans are believed to suffer from one mental illness or another?" This seems like a factual statement I would like to verify.

Come on, there's no way to verify that. We all know this.

Well, I want to give Tolstoy a chance to defend his statements at least. I was unaware of any large scale testing of mental illnesses, so this is of great interest to me. If there wasn't such a study or test, then that statement would seem like one of those statements people make when they have no idea what they are talking about. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Conservatives and the NRA like to trot out "mental illness" as a way to deflect from the real issue which is gun violence. They also know there's no way in hell that Republicans will honestly support mental health issues in any meaningful way.

So nothing changes. The status quo is always a win for conservatives by definition.

As an ignoramus, I have little understanding of conservatives and liberals. I do like facts and studies though. So let's be patient and wait for Tolstoy to provide us with his source or how he came to that particular realization. I am also not interested in arguing about what conservatives and liberals want to do.

You can safely ignore my comment, zultar. IIRC it was a claim from someone opposed to the whole psychiatry industry that you would consider a nut or crank. As for "credible" sources, Newsweek says one in five (http://www.newsweek.com/nearly-1-5-americans-suffer-mental-illness-each-year-230608) while acknowledging that many in the industry (including the CDC) believe the rate may be closer to 25-30%. Suffice it to say that the number of Americans who would be barred from gun ownership on the grounds of a mental illness diagnosis would be in the tens of millions.

Apology on an unfounded blanket statement accepted.

Also, the links in that article do not work. They do not have the original studies in there. Also, mental illness has a wide range, many of which are not related to guns or violence issues or potential for violence, so making the causal claim that mental illness should prevent people from owning guns is rather deeply flawed.

I am not making any arguments for or against gun ownership, but rather blanket statements and causal claims that have no basis in reality. This would also include statements like conservatives all claim this or no Republicans will do that. It's either unfair or misinform or deliberately inflammatory and serve little purpose. Just my take.

"Also, mental illness has a wide range, many of which are not related to guns or violence issues or potential for violence"
can you name a specific mental illness thas is related with guns or violence issues?

This isn't my area of expertise at all. Here is what I am aware of: there are psychotic disorders like schizophrenia where there is a relationship with violence issues. There is also PTSD. I don't know any specific mental illness that has been linked to guns. My point is the second part of that sentence that we should not make causal claim about mental illnesses and guns.

"Apology on an unfounded blanket statement accepted."

I wasn't apologizing, simply pointing out that you would not find what I remember my source to be credible (I, on the other hand, do).

The CDC link in the Newsweek article does work: http://www.cdc.gov/mentalhealthsurveillance/fact_sheet.html . One of the bullet points says: "published studies report that about 25% of all U.S. adults have a mental illness and that nearly 50% of U.S. adults will develop at least one mental illness during their lifetime"

Mental illness diagnoses are so subjective that just about anyone can be declared to have one. It was a favorite method of disposing of political undesirables in the Soviet Union. As the DSM's definitions of mental illnesses constantly expand, so, too, do the number of people who become "mentally ill". Eventually, the only sane people in our world will be the "mental health professionals", the ruling class, and those clever enough to evade a diagnosis. Considering how people who espouse "conspiracy theories" about governments doing bad things are increasingly considered to be mentally ill, conservative gun owners who advocate mental health screenings for gun ownership will probably rue the day when they get what they're asking for.

It's not just what source is considered to be credible, but how to interpret those statements. You clearly glossed over, overgeneralized and made causal claims for which you can't support. First, there is no causal claim about mental illnesses and guns. Second, 25% have a mental illness does not describe what kind of illness they have or the severity or if they interfere with daily functioning or somehow related to violence. Third, even if 50% will develop a mental illness during their lifetime is NOT the same as 50% are believed to have a mental illness. I am perfectly fine with the CDC's report, but the statement you made is far removed from the "facts" or source that you got it from.

"First, there is no causal claim about mental illnesses and guns."

I never said there was.

"Second, 25% have a mental illness does not describe what kind of illness they have or the severity or if they interfere with daily functioning or somehow related to violence."

I never claimed it did.

"Third, even if 50% will develop a mental illness during their lifetime is NOT the same as 50% are believed to have a mental illness."

No, it's not. But if a good record of mental health is required to own a firearm as is being suggested by others (NOT me), having a past mental illness is going to be a serious red flag for the clerks at the gun license office, if not an outright disqualification.

Ah, ok. Fair enough. I think I read too much into your first response. It was vague enough to make it seem like that's where you were going.
The discussion that followed clarified a number of things though, so I think that was a good use of time, at least for me.

If there was an emoticon for dismissive sarcasm, I would've used it in my first post. I thought it was going to be obvious I wasn't seriously considering the prospect of seriously constricting the constitutional rights of half of the population of the United States, but this being the internet I should've known that would not be a safe assumption. Glad we could clear it up!

The amount of people with mental illness depends a lot on what you call a mental illness. I do think mentally 'abnormal' shouldn't be considered mentally ill so quickly.

I think the blurryine between mentally well and ill is based on how it affects your quality of life.

If you have a behaviour which is harming you then you should seek help from a mental health professional. Learning to better manage your own mental health. Unfortunately the stigma associated with mental health issues (along with other 'invisible' illnesses) means treatment is often not sought, and without early intervention deterioration can have serious consequences.

Rarely those consequences may invovle gun violence, but most gun violence is unrelated.

Being a killjoy can severely affect your quality of life.
Mental illness?
Do you have to consider it harmful yourself or can others decide that for you?
I'm (consciously) unorthodox in a variety of ways, in my eyes because my ways are either more virtuous, efficient, practical or principally right to me.
I just don't take over behaviour or views because it's culturally expected if that makes sense. It's not like I'm purposefully controversial.

I tend not to communicate why I have odd tendencies and I wouldn't be surprised if some thought something's wrong with me.
Wouldn't change a thing though.

Many people will see me as odd, but some facts speak for themselves, such as my achievements and they imply I must be doing something right.

My point is, though, that if I gave a shit about how others think I should be, which many do, I'd be very.. 'normal', which I think would be a great shame.

So when someone needs to seek help from a mental health professional and this professional proceeds to 'fix it', I can't help wondering whether a disease is being cured or a unique trait is being suppressed.

I think that most of the people with a mental illness should not be allowed to own guns. However, 'mental illness' is a broad term so a trained psychologist should be the one making the final call here. maybe side by side with an ethicist.

"Disuss."

I think you forgot a link.

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/18/its_not_about_mental_illness_the_big_lie_that_always_follows_mass_shootings_by_white_males/

I left out the link on purpose, because i wanted to focus the thread on just this one point rather than being distracted by straw men argued about other things the article says.

And so far it hasn't strayed to far (mostly still talking about mental illness)

But if you want another view on this: i've heard people here say 'you must be nuts to shoot up a school' - well nuts isn't a diagnosis of mental illness, but here is someone diagnosing the ill which society suffers: constitutiveoutsider.tumblr.com/post/86742938137/the-mental-illness-we-refuse-to-name-white-male