Should people with Aspergers be able to own guns?

Post Reply New Topic

I own two. I'll probably get another two, and that's it; I must keep my obsession in check.

You can only be denied a license here in Oz if you've been ordered to receive mental treatment from a court and the treating doctor doesn't give you the all ok (this is regarding mental illness). I just went through it all again to get my license renewed.

Cars kill more people than guns...yet aspies can drive a car, so if they have no criminal record and have never been hospitalized for any depression or anything like that, they should be allowed to own firearms.I don't know what the laws are in Canada regarding AS and guns, but I do not think they will have much to look up for me since I think they only look back 10 years and I have not needed any services, accomodations, or anything during the past 10 years, so I might be able to slip through those checks and I have no criminal record.

I agree with the strict gun control laws here in the UK.

Im Canadian, but Id prefer the American way in dealing with the gun issue....

If I can't walk into your local S-Mart and put down several million dollars and buy an atomic bomb because you say I can't, you're a despot.

It's a simple as that.

No one should be able to own guns. Including police, UNLESS they are dealing with a criminal who has obtained a gun themselves.

Here in the USA, gun ownership is a right, not a privilege. It can only be taken away via "due process" of law.

So, unless your diagnosis documents features that have been adjudicated to say you pose a serious risk to yourself or others, there is no reason to take away your right to own and carry a firearm.

To be fair, I am hesitant to get a formal Dx because I see a push to have people with any psychological or neurological Dx stripped of rights even if the condition and firearms do not cross. Right now, having PTSD is grounds for being denied the right to buy a gun, but PTSD is a blanket concept that can range from mild to severe and can be caused by anything.

The push to strip away this right from Americans is relentless.

I believe people with AS should be able to hold guns unless they are diagnosed to have depression or any other disorders that engages them in self-harm...

Recreational shooting. When I own a gun, I would simply go out shooting in the woods with a few friends of mine. I've always had a fascination with guns, so I want to start a gun collection.

The problem with the steel bar thing is that you're assuming that the person is strong enough to swing it hard enough to have enough of an effect to knock the assailant out. Also, if said assailant is armed with a gun, or is much bigger and stronger than the victim, that's bad news. Not all people are strong enough to take on whoever is after them. I'm not a person who believes everyone should own a gun, but I do believe that people should not have to yield to thieves, rapists, and murderers, and should be able to protect what's theirs, and if that means that they need to own a gun to protect themselves properly, then they should be able to.

I agree that combat is risky, but I would also say that running away is just as risky, since the assailant can come after you or try to shoot you from a distance.

No, it isn't, unless you're going to use it responsibly, or keep it safe if you aren't intending to use it. If you are someone who can do that, then withholding your right to own an atomic bomb is wrong. In a world full of ideal people, if you want to buy a bomb I can trust you not to go round exploding people for kicks - but I can't trust real people not to do that. We can work together to make the world, eventually, into a place where it is possible, though. That'd be nice.

I agree wholeheartedly!

I own a gun and have since I was a child. I took classes, and shot competitively.

I did not enjoy it, as it was loud and boring. My father, however, was proud of the fact that I beat all of "the boys".

I do not own ammunition, nor would I shoot the gun if I had ammunition. I suppose I would consider using it if there were some sort of apocalypse and I was forced to use it for survival. The chances of that are low, though.

I can see why some people with aspergers should be prevented from owning guns... but only some, as I have known aspies who fly in to huge rages, and if there was a gun in their hands, I am sure they would have hurt someone. That said though, I have aspergers, and I never pick a fight with someone, and if in the future I were to buy a gun, it would be for shooting intruders in my home. (I can say with some certainty that if their was a burglar/murderer in my house in the middle of the night and I had a gun, I would shoot him)

I have Aspergers, but does that prevent me from owning my BB, pellet and .22 caliber rifle? NO! I just go to a shooting range if i want to shoot my rifle, or walk into the woods behind my neighborhood to shoot my pellet and BB guns. If I ever need to defend myself at home, I'll just use one of my dad's Uzis.

Well, honestly I think gun laws are getting a little loose over here in the US. You can take them into national parks now, wtf. And MANY people who are not "mentally ill" have done really stupid things with guns. (Like shooting innocent people through their door because they thought they were getting robbed..)

And, as we've seen from Virginia Tech and... that other one, some of us DO have the capacity to stew in the juices of bullying and rejection until we freak the f*ck out and kill everyone.

..so I can see why they would want to be careful. They don't know you personally and so they can't judge if your mental state will cause you to make a bad decision.

Of course, it WOULD be very nice and, IMO, a perfectly good compromise to offer the option to get to know you better by letting you fill out a longer questionnaire or maybe having you talk to someone who would evaluate you. Is that an option?
(Actually, if it were up to me, that would be standard procedure for everyone..)



Anyway, about the sex offender thing... what was he labeled for? Because people around here have been getting labeled sex offenders for seriously stupid stuff, like sleeping with girls who say they're 18 and have fake IDs (so how are you supposed to know?) and for PEEING IN THE WOODS. On a hiking trail where there are no bathrooms and EVERYONE pees in the woods. Some lady who apparently was not a regular hiker got all bent out of shape about it and now some poor well-hydrated guy has to be labeled as a sex offender (which sounds like "rapist" to most people) for the rest of his live.

..you can tell I'm still reeling from that one.

Quartermass, I know it has been a LONG time, but guns ARE needed for defense and possibly food in some areas. They have legitimate purposes. Those two reasons are valid EVEN for short nosed 9mm semiautomatics. They can be good for defense, and/or possibly even killing an animal for food. IRONICALLY, 9mm are LAUGHED at by some that don't see them as great for killing since they are often low powered and low caliber. Although I am certainly not belittling them, I have seen people talk about them like they are little better than BB guns. There are weapons that look/work in a similar fashion and ARE better for killing. If peoplle REALLY want to get rid of them, they should get rid of ALL weapons EVERYWHERE, EVEN the police can't have them, and they should pass REALLY strict laws against even MENTIONING them. Of course, this ALSO means that dictionaries would have to be burned, films and books would have to be destroyed, etc... MAYBE, in a few decades, we could be gun free. Frankly though, I don't know how ANYONE could enforce such laws.

Liverbird,

I know you can get upset, etc... but I doubt you would kill anyone. I have heard of people treated FAR better than you that resorted to murder. And guns are certainly not needed for such things.

ALSO, regarding the 2nd amendment. SOME argue that it is to give the government rights. What a STUPID concept! Where the body of the constitution starts, it says, in part, "PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE"! THAT gave the government those rights, and it is a NEEDED right. Every government on the planet ALWAYS had that right. The first 10 amendments were to LIMIT government!

1. The government can NOT prefer a religion, limit assembly, or stop speech against government or for religion.

2. The government can NOT forbid the ownership/use of weapons.

3. The government can NOT force the quartering of soldiers in peace time.

4. The government can NOT do searches without just cause.

5. The government can NOT incarcerate people through contrivances of circumstance, and can NOT allocate property unless for the COMMON good.

6. The government can NOT hold a suspect forever, and can NOT limit fact finding contrary to their case, must provide a jury, etc....

7. The government can NOT force a civil case without a jury.

8. The government can NOT charge excessive bail, or inflict undue punishment.

9. The government can NOT take the failure to mention any right as evidence that no such right is granted.

10. The federal government has NO rights that are not SPECIFICALLY granted by the constitution.

The others were added later, but 1-10 were proposed 1789 and enacted 1791. That was simply to make the constitution clearer.

STILL, the US government has violated EVERY one except maybe 3 and 7. With #2, they have even claimed that it was a right given to the GOVERNMENT for time of war. That is ludicrous. In light of statements maade at the time, the people involved, and such rights being in the main body of the constitution, how could anyone argue such a thing, and be serious. With #1, they have claimed that they must prohibt religion in public places. Even though the amendment says, in part, "Congress shall make NO law....prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]"!

Did I mention that I ALSO don't trust LAWYERS!?!?