The Guns for Bipolars Issue

Posted on April 28, 2007 in Bipolar Disorder Privacy Violence

The post-Virginia Tech fallout has me thinking hard — along with half of Congress and much of the nation — about what we should do about the gun problem. Long ago, I came to the conclusion that the strife over guns was mostly due to the failure of both sides to understand the needs of the other: for example, a friend in Texas told me that it took 30 minutes for a sheriff to arrive at her house after a 911 call. Then there were the numerous stories of innocent and not so innocent bystanders being shot in our cities.

But this essay is about what people are thinking of doing after Virginia Tech. We “mental defectives”, the reasoning goes, should not be trusted with guns. In my own case — that of a bipolar with suicidal wishes — I agree. A gun makes killing myself way too easy and irreversible.

I don’t like the idea of guns being readily available anyways, so asking me if I want my right to bear arms being taken away doesn’t fit the terms of the debate as it is now in Congress. Congressman want to limit the availability of guns to “mental defectives”. That’s what they are calling me in their draft legislation and I don’t like it. Just what the bipolar community needs these days is a big sign saying “Stupid” or “Dangerous” around our necks. “Hi there. I’m mentally defective. Do you want to have dinner with me?”

Mental health groups are sure to rise against this language. I can already hear the whine of conservatives who want to hold on to their precious argot, denying all the way that there is anything offensive. Hear them mutter “Oh, those mentally ill people are going off again. Just pass the legislation and be done with it. They will be upset no matter what we do.”

The question of what constitutes a “mental defective” follows on this rudeness. Are all bipolars, depressives, and schizoaffectives going to be classed under this? Or are they going to rely on a “danger to self and others” criteria such as is used for involuntary commitment in California and many other states? Who gets to say that you are a danger to self or others? Your psychiatrist? A police officer? An obsessive civil servant down in the basement of the county courthouse who voted for Bush for reasons unknown to normal human consciousness, who thought you might be a little kooky? How will we fix mistakes?

Having declared my reservations, I’d like to propose something: an advance directive for gun ownership. Now that I am stable, I know that I don’t want myself buying a gun when I am in episode. So why not allow me to send a form in to the ATF saying “Joel Sax does not want you selling a gun to Joel Sax” so that I can’t walk down to the local gun shop and buy my very own suicide weapon on demand? This safeguard would be put in place by me for me. There’s a question of cancellation — what if I decided to take up target shooting? for example — but I think for the most part this may be the most sensible response to the Virginia Tech episode. It may not save us from the kook who comes in by the door but it can I believe get each of us thinking about firearms in our life. We can’t afford not to.

[tags]gun control, Virginia Tech shootings, privacy, gun regulation, mental illness, bipolar disorder[/tags]