On May 21, 2006, Kimberly Corban was a 20-year-old student completing her sophomore year at the University of Northern Colorado. She had just finished finals — summer was on its way. She had her whole life ahead of her.
Then, the unthinkable happened. Around five in the morning, a man broke into her apartment in Greeley, Colo., and, for almost two hours, sexually assaulted her.
“I thought, ‘I’m going to die,'” Corban, now 30, told The Washington Post in a phone interview. “There’s no going back from that.”
Corban’s story did not exactly have a happy ending — or, at least, the ending is ever-evolving. Though her assailant is now serving 24 years to life in prison, she struggled with depression, PTSD and stress-related seizures. And, speaking about her experience, she came to realize how important it was for women to have access to guns to protect themselves.
Then, Thursday night on national television, she got to confront the man she thought wanted to take her guns away: President Obama.
“As a survivor of rape, and now a mother to two small children — you know, it seems like being able to purchase a firearm of my choosing, and being able to carry that wherever my — me and my family are — it seems like my basic responsibility as a parent at this point,” she told Obama during “Guns in America,” CNN’s town hall, after the president announced executive orders on gun control Tuesday. (end of news story)
Obama can’t seem to get away with any of his far left rhetoric on any issue, from refugee/terrorists, ISIS, Obamacare, border security or gun rights. Fewer and fewer Americans are buying what he’s selling. It’s about time too. Thanks to Obama this nation is broke, we’ve seen across the board declines in earnings among the middle class and a growing poverty class. Nations around the world either don’t respect us, don’t fear us or want to harm us more than ever before. North Korea has no problem telling America we will kill you and we’re developing nuclear weapons with Iran! And Iran has no problem breaking the agreement Obama negotiated over nukes and ICBMs. They have never slowed down for a moment and Israel is looking at us, wondering what the he77 is going on in this country. I wonder that myself, because we’ve got this so-called commander-in-chief doing more harm to American law enforcement than ISIS. We’ve got race relations back to the 1950’s and the stock market ready to tank… what’s next?
Corban is obviously very brave, a true fighter and hero who put her attacker away. What happened to her never should happen to anyone.
She brings up a conversation we need to be having: should depression and PTSD in and of themselves be reason to deny someone access to a gun? I don’t think so, but then I know a lot of people with depression whom I would trust with guns. Has the Obama administration proposed that these should be disqualifiers to owning a gun?
What do you all think? I’ve seen many on Post Scripts stress the need to look at our mental health system in dealing with the issue of gun violence; do you think we should stop people who have depression or PTSD from owning guns?
Chris I think the first thing we should do is stop focusing on guns and start looking at the laws that govern how we handle the mentally ill.
Nobody wants to go back to the days when people could easily be locked away in mental hospitals forever where they were often subjected to abusive treatments but we also need to address the many, many people who really need to be hospitalized. Parents with troubled kids desperately need some avenue of recourse.
A paper published in 2009 in The International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation shows that the direction we took in 1963 led to the miserable consequence we see today:
Many of these “patients”refuse treatment and medications. They walk away and cannot be stopped, even though they might be a danger to others and certainly are vulnerable themselves, because of our laws.
The following statistics from this paper are older (80’s and 90’s) but they do reflect our current situation. Read on:
And yet we have educators that make contradicting claims:
Why is it necessary to create conflict? Whether these patients are vulnerable or a danger to others their specific issues are not being met and the public is forced to deal with the crime and homelessness unaided by the professional mental health community.
This is totally unacceptable. The mental health laws need to be reformed.
Chris, I honestly believe it would be based on the degree or severity of the depression or PTSD.
We’ve all been through tough times at one or more points in our lives. I don’t think someone who is down or feeling blue for a week or so can be compared to someone who is bipolar/manic depressed. I’d hate to see everyone lumped together and have someone on meds for a very short period to be classified the same as someone on meds for years.
For example I would hate to learn that when I learned my oldest son had Muscular Dystrophy and wouldn’t live past 13 years old and later when he died that if I had taken prescribed meds during that time I would not be able to own a gun to protect myself 30 years later. On the other hand if there is a mentally disturbed person who is a threat to him/herself or others and on meds I’d sure hope they wouldn’t be able to get their hands on a gun. At least not until a medical professional is willing to verify they are not on meds and no longer a danger.
Anyway, that’s what I think,
My daughter-in-law is a MFC (Marriage Family Child) therapist and I plan to ask her what she thinks of the new gun control regulations and how will the HIPA law requirements affect her in her practice.
Peggy, I agree with you.
My other question seems to have gone unanswered. Corban seems to be arguing that Obama has proposed regulations that will make it harder for her to own a gun due to her depression and PTSD. What proposal is she talking about? What has Obama proposed that would stop people with depression and PTSD from obtaining a gun? I read through the list of executive orders, and I don’t see anything like that in there.
I believe this is what she’s talking about and also what I referred to. Taken from Obama’s list of changes “… information on persons disqualified because of a mental illness…”
Where is this information coming from? A doctor who prescribed her meds for her depression or anxiety, which she probably did suffer after her rape?
The statement is too vague. What information and from whom was it obtained? Would a statement from an estranged or ex-spouse or even a problematic neighbor or relative?
What time frame applies? A month ago or 10 years ago?
I’m glad we can agree of something, but I can’t support this until more information is provided and clarity on the questions I posed are answered. I don’t want dangerous people to be able to have access to guns, but I don’t want a victim of rape to be denied one to protect herself either.
Here’s an idea to consider. I am remembering the woman who was killed by her boyfriend while she was waiting for background check to be completed for her gun purchase. Also, what about all of those who can’t afford a gun?
I’d also like to have our courts set up an emergency gun access to women and men who have been assaulted or raped without waiting to have their background checked. I’d like a victim, during their attacker’s arraignment hearing, to be able to petition the judge to obtain a gun immediately. Police and sheriff depts. could issue one from their own supply after a required safety and handling class was completed.
‘No one helped her’: NJ woman murdered by ex while awaiting gun permit:
“Carol Bowne knew her best shot at defending herself from a violent ex was a gun, and not a piece of paper. And it was paperwork that left her unprotected when Michael Eitel showed up at her New Jersey home last week and stabbed her to death, say Second Amendment advocates, who charge local police routinely sit on firearms applications they are supposed to rule on within 30 days.
Bowne, 39, had a restraining order against Eitel when he killed her in her driveway last Wednesday, but she was still waiting for Berlin Township Police Chief Leonard Check to approve the gun permit she had applied for on April 21. Tragically, she had gone to the township police department just two days before her death to check on the status of her languishing application. In another indication of her fear of Eitel, Bowne had recently installed surveillance cameras around her home, and the equipment recorded the 45-year-old ex-con attacking her as she arrived home and got out of her car.
“Carol would have qualified for a permit since she was attacked; only now it’s too late.”
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/06/10/no-one-helped-her-nj-woman-murdered-by-ex-while-waiting-for-gun-permit.html
““… information on persons disqualified because of a mental illness…”
To me this suggests that the administration would be looking at information on persons already disqualified due to mental illness, not changing the boundaries of who is disqualified. So I don’t see how Corban would be disqualified under this terminology. You’re right that the language is vague and there isn’t enough info for us to know for certain, but it seems wrong to jump to the conclusion that Corban would be disqualified under this policy.
My first thought about Mental illness and the needed support those people require was,
“Why do we have to tie it in with Gun Control?”
That is pure political in my opinion and is not indented to find an answer to mental illness!
Mental illness is a recognizable problem, and as such should stand alone, fund the problem, and do not penalize the rest of us living normal stress filled lives, without issue.
As to legal and responsible gun ownership and medical history, once the complexity of the issue is established, through extensive medical exams, which is a major point, so as not to cause the sufferer of a NORMAL occasional stress-related situation.
Someone who has been prescribed MINOR temporary stress-related medications doctors prescribe to rebalance neurological functions, who will never be a problem, but not just allow Government agencies to troll medical data bases and registered firearms data bases (and there’s the big misuse part of the problem) much like Attorney General Kamala D. Harris of California did to seize entire household collections of fire arms, when one and only one person in the house was using a minor depression related prescription for something like seasonal mood disorders. Major misuse of power.
The NRA has for decades been trying to guide Government to establish meaningful laws that do not interfere with constitutional rights.
Recently the news said Obama called into the WH major social media people to try and prevent ISIS from using the internet as a tool, then why can’t the same formula be consistently used with the NRA and manufactures’ of firearms?
All good points, Tina, but I don’t think Corban is much at risk of being institutionalized or ending up homeless; she seems to be handling her illness quite well and has a lot of support (though of course these things are unpredictable). My questions were, is there anything Obama has proposed that would stop her from legally having a gun? And should there be?
Here is another woman that is not happy with Obama’s new gun control order.
Chinese Immigrant’s Powerful Response to Obama’s Executive Action on Guns:
“Chinese immigrant Lily Tang Williams had some harsh words following President Barack Obama’s recent “Guns in America” town hall and executive action on gun control.
In a Facebook post, featuring the author standing in front of an American flag and holding and AR-15, Williams opened with a two-sentence warning on the dangers of losing the right to own a firearm.
“If you believe more gun control by your government is going to save lives, you are being naïve. The champion of all the mass killings in this world is always a tyrannical government.”
Remembering the 1989 student protests at Tiananmen Square, Williams wrote about the Chinese government killing “thousands of the students.”
“I surely wish my fellow Chinese citizens back then had guns like this one I am holding in the picture,” Williams said.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/01/09/chinese-immigrants-powerful-response-to-obamas-executive-action-on-guns/
Chris, I responded to your question, “What do you all think? I’ve seen many on Post Scripts stress the need to look at our mental health system in dealing with the issue of gun violence;…”, by saying the focus should be on mental health law.
The details would require a level of expertise above my pay grade and yours.
I might agree or disagree with the finished legislative proposal depending on content.
The point is the President made a very big deal of doing absolutely nothing when, if he actually is as concerned as his tears suggest, he should be addressing the common thread in all of these cases…mental health.
“I don’t think Corban is much at risk of being institutionalized or ending up homeless…”
In no way did I say she was or mean to say she was.
“…is there anything Obama has proposed that would stop her from legally having a gun?
No.
Legal Insurrection:
A good assumption might be that this was a political photo op; middle of the road; he’s
(Democrats are) both reasonable and caring.
I think he bombed.
“And should there be?”
No, as you say she is managing well and shown no sign of violence in six years.
Here’s one for you. Should “saving even one life” have priority over institutionalizing potentially dangerous mental patients/citizens if it might mean we open the possibility of institutionalizing someone unfairly?
Tina: “No.”
Ok, in that case we agree.
I’m not sure why Corban said the following:
“As a survivor of rape and now a mother to two small children, it seems like being able to purchase a firearm of my choosing, and being able to carry that wherever me and my family are, it seems like my basic responsibility as a parent at this point. I have been unspeakably victimized once already, and I refuse to let that happen again to myself or my kids. So why can’t your administration see that these restrictions that you’re putting to make it harder for me to own a gun, or harder for me to take that where I need to be is actually just making my kids and I less safe?”
I’m not sure why she thinks anything Obama has done has made it harder for her to own a gun. Again, I respect and admire her for her courage, but she seems to be wrong on this issue.
Tina: “Here’s one for you. Should “saving even one life” have priority over institutionalizing potentially dangerous mental patients/citizens if it might mean we open the possibility of institutionalizing someone unfairly?”
I’m not entirely sure I understand the question, but I’ll do my best.
I admit I’ve used the phrase “If it can only save one life…” before in the gun debate, and I’m now slightly embarrassed by using that framing. Lots of policies could end up saving lives but would be unconstitutional or unfair. We have to balance safety with basic rights, and I believe self defense is one of those rights. Confiscating all guns might save some lives (though it would also certainly result in some unarmed people being killed by lawbreakers), but such a policy would still be wrong because it would violate a fundamental right. (It would also be wildly impractical if not impossible in America, and would likely start something close to a civil war.) Similarly, registering all Muslims in a national database might (and I stress might) save some lives, but it would also be unconstitutional, impractical and counter-productive to the overall war effort. So I now see “If it can just save one life…” as somewhat of a lousy argument, contrary to what I used to believe.
That said, if a policy can save lives with few significant drawbacks, then it should be done. Personally, I don’t see any problem with universal background checks or closing the gun show loophole, and I think the benefits of those policies would far outweigh the drawbacks.
I think some people should be institutionalized against their will, but only if they have proven to be a danger to themselves or others. I would not support an aggressive policy of over-institutionalization on the grounds of reducing gun violence, unless those institutionalized showed a proclivity toward gun violence.
Does that answer your question?