Mental Health & Guns-Which comes first?
Submitted by Christopher A. Brown on Sat, 07/21/2012 - 11:09Gun owners appear to approve death from gun violence over gun rights. The deaths are being used to ban guns and remove 2nd amendment rights.
Let me explain.
IF gun owners want gun rights, THEN gun owners must stand for appropriate, effective mental health care because otherwise mentally ill people will have guns and be committing murders. They do and are every day.
This logic IS an absolute.
From what I've seen, gun owners do not support effective mental health care. In fact, they will not even discuss the issue. They do not appear to care. This is illogical.
Now . . . all of that may be appearances created by cognitive infiltration of 2nd amendment activist groups.
Along the same line of logic we have this second amendment forum which does not appear to recognize that the first right of Americans is that congress call an Article V convention.
Which is it? Do any gun rights advocates understand this issue or are those in this forum pretenders that refuse logic?
If you accept this logic and support the concept that effective mental health care protects gun rights because it prevents murders or any reason for government to limit 2nd amendment rights, you must post and ask what mental health care providers can do to improve mental health care in order to demonstrate your sincerity.
Then, if such mental health care measures are shown to be reasonable, you must become an advocate for the best mental health care.
If you do not accept this logic then you cannot effectively defend 2nd amendment rights because you are not logical or accountable to your position in support of 2nd amendment rights.
- Login to post comments
Your straw man.
I'll tell you what. You submit yourself to whatever screening you want to to be determined of sound mind to do whatever it is you wish to do by whomever you decide gets to have authority over you. You do not, however, get to use force or delegate to someone else a right to use force to make them submit to whatever screening you think is appropriate.
Attempting to portray people in favor individual liberty and rights as illogical if they do not support the use of force to make people comply with some edict you'd approve of is illogical at best, and ignorant and deceptive at worst.
mass murders
occur because the average citizen has relegated the responsibility for their own safety to a group of guys that show up after the fact. law abiding citizens are expected to be good little targets.
nice try.
"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul
Check the cognitive distortions on this page
You are generalizing heavily.
You also leave out the fact that many mass murders are simply people with major mental problems. They have no where to go that will actually treat their issues.
My point is that ONLY with effective mental health care can they be stopped and prevented. ONLY with effective mental health care can gun rights be protected.
Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?
you missed the mark by a mile.
a 1911 and a well placed round would have stopped james holmes, dead in his tracks. the idea he could have been stopped by a screening from the "there's a pill for that" professionals is laughable, at best.
"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul
I think you are a troll
You make a post that is basically saying that you think that "Mental Health" should be considered with the right to bear arms and then you tell every responder here that you are not talking about mental health screening in order to purchase a fire arm. And then you refuse to clarify what exactly you are saying. And you say we are not cognitive?
You said: "IF gun owners want gun rights, THEN gun owners must stand for appropriate, effective mental health care because otherwise mentally ill people will have guns and be committing murders." That suggests mental health screening.
So you are either trolling or you are not cognitive of what you actually wrote. If you are not advocating mental health screening for firearm purchase then what does "effective mental health" have to do with firearm ownership?
And you also refuse to address the fact that by far most gun crimes are committed by people who would not be considered "mentally ill". So the end result of your logic is that the definition of "mentally ill" should be expanded which will eventually end the right to bear arms all together.
And what the hell does and Article V convention have to do with anything? The last thing we need is for the usurpers in power now to reek havoc with the constitution which they hate in the first place. I don't think you are cognitive of the reality that we live in.
I think you need a course in cognitive reasoning.
Your post proves you are a cognitive infiltrator
It is too intentionally contradictory to the facts of what I say. The fact you cannot quote from my posting what you assert I post.
Anothernobody wrote an error:
"You make a post that is basically saying that you think that "Mental Health" should be considered with the right to bear arms and then you tell every responder here that you are not talking about mental health screening in order to purchase a fire arm. And then you refuse to clarify what exactly you are saying. And you say we are not cognitive?"
I only say America needs effective mental health care, and that is all.
You serve the infiltrators of the government because you are against effective mental health care and intentionally misinterpret my post to decieve those reading.
Without effective mental health care the mass murders will continue and gun rights will be removed. You want that and prove it with your intentional, dynamic misinterpretation.
ALso you work to make Americans afraid of their own constitution, Article V.
Anothernobody wrote:
"usurpers in power now to reek havoc with the constitution"
I propose preparatory amendment to prevent ANYTHING but amendments that have proper constitutional intent. Here is a summary.
http://algoxy.com/ows/preparation_for_article_v.pdf
Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?
Ok I see your problem
"I only say America needs effective mental health care, and that is all."
Wow! I can in FACT quote from your posting what you are asserting. Which is what I have been doing yet you have refused to clarify your own remarks. Until now and now we can clearly see your fallacy.
America does not NEED "effective" mental health care. First of all you have no idea what "effective" health care is and your presumption that AMERICA needs your so called "effective" health care is wrong. Your statement proves that my rebuttal to your original post is correct and spot on.
You think that AMERICA needs to submit to some form of mental health care which by proxy will prevent mass murder which is only possible if everyone aka "America" submits to your effective health care. If you don't see that then you are being intellectually dishonest.
If I am wrong then tell me how the "mentally unstable" people will be prevented from gun ownership if mental health screening is not mandatory?
No sir, me thinks you are the cognitive infiltrator.
Facts prove you wrong-your post proves you infiltrate
If this is true,
anothernobody wrote:
"Wow! I can in FACT quote from your posting what you are asserting."
then why didn't you do so?
The director of my counties mental health department approved of my proposal for mental health care so much, she had the chief medical doctor of the department write this letter stating the department was gping to "carry my request forward to the state mental health department". Here is a scan of the letter.
http://i46.tinypic.com/1gook3.jpg
The answer in writing was stopped by the county supervisors because my FOIA request for it which was file stamped and placed in the records of the clerk of the board was removed from the clerks records AND the supervisors records.
http://i46.tinypic.com/20atatx.jpg
Later in a federal lawsuit, the 9th circuit district court in Los Angeles secretly revised the court rules to deprive me of a new magistrate and judge. This was done because there were no defenses for the lawsuit.
I've proven you are a cognitive infiltrator because I've shown how unaccountable you are.
I've proven I am a sincere citizen trying to use law to protect citizens, to defend the constitutiona while government refuses to follow laws and courts refuse to recognize, follow and uphold laws.
Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?
Do you know what a quote is?
This is a quote:
"I only say America needs effective mental health care, and that is all."
Notice the quotation marks at the beginning and the end. Also notice that it is word for word what you said since it was cut and pasted from your response. That is called a quote. So in answer to your question, and I quote: "then why didn't you do so?" I just did and have been quoting you and you continually refuse to give straight answers which solidifies my suspension that you are just trolling.
And just because you have suggested some crackpot hypnosis therapy for those who you consider mentally ill does not make you right. I wont even get into the dangers of hypnosis nor it's stupidity. But the fact that you advocate hypnotizing people to make them conform to your idea of mental health says it all about you.
I disagree with these:...
..."If you are not advocating mental health screening"
and this " by people who would not be considered "mentally ill".
Both of those imply use of current government endorsed "mental health" practice which, like "Internet security" and "public safety" (ad infinitum, ad nauseam) have little or nothing to do with waht is stated and is frequently the opposite. How would screening detect mental illness when it based on a voted-into-existence array of disorders from the DSM?
I think you are the one who needs to drop the Germanic, sherlock-Holmes style "logic" of trying to eliminate and see what you are left with, without first taking broad enough spectrum.
You seem to agree with me
and then you attack me? Perhaps you should reread my response.
I consider what you said very thoughtful.
However, it seemed to me you criticized the poster by assuming too narrow a viewpoint of what he said.
As he is the originator of this train of thought, I presumed he was coming from somewhere like this:
1) When people shoot other people that is something that harms both themselves and the one who was shot. It is not difficult to consider that a mentally unwell thing to do -- yet courts would argue about the sanity or insanity of it based on psychiatric evaluations that have nothing to do with the fact of it. Causing harm to your symbiotes is not logical or sane and has nothing to do with "ability to reason" per se.
2) If we had effective mental health, we would expect things like prediction, diagnosis and ability to better mental conditions. Although a very small percentage of people who use current “mental health” practice get improvements, crime and particularly public shootings are increasing as these practices and especially medications become more prevalent; in fact to a degree that it’s probably a good starting point to consider them as a cause for this rather than a cure. Their history of sordid political associations make them the opposite of symbiotic. They are, in fact controlled by the same people Libertarians generally oppose and are just another tool for achieving their ends. Go and research Hitler’s links with psychiatry and their role in the Bosnia-Herzogovinia and in the Ruandan conflicts if you want to know more. So, using the yardstick I raised in (1) THEY are not sane, even though they might be very coldly capable of reason. Almost certainly, the current practices do not generally predict, diagnose or better mental conditions. The widespread use of psychiatric drugs is a strong indication of failed mental practice as such.
3) When I read the original post my thoughts turned to practices outside of the mainstream. You could do your own research on this, but, as with cancer and other conditions, effective practices are frequently and even usually vilified by the mainstream and especially by the media because of their ownership.
4) You seemed to imply that the poster implied screening, which is clearly useless, so my diagreement was with saying he implied screening which he has stated over and over that he does not imply.
5) When you mentioned “not considered mentally” ill you again seemed to invoke the current mainstream practices as the source for such considerations.
6) Libertarianism is very symbiotic and calls for free markets with competition which would then inevitably widen the scope of what is available in the field of “effective mental health"
and opens numerous possibilities that would provide methods of prediction and diagnosis that could be used with gun control, whereas the current “norms” of “mental health” would fail to provide solutions and probably worsen the situation.
7) People who have been to “mental professionals” and have been fobbed off with drugs as a substitute to understanding and therapy easily get into a frame of mind that they cannot be helped and find life meaningless. People who reach that attitude easily fall into the frame of mind of ending their lives and taking others with them. And that, if you cared to research it would go a long way toward explaining why so many of the public shootings are done by people who were on psychiatric drugs. There are many ways to fall into that frame of mind with the unnecessary and deliberate pressures put on people by the “elite” but psychiatric drugs is a very prevalent and relatively rapid one.
The infiltraors have trashed this thread so . . .
I'm not even sure who you are replying to.
This forum is so inadequate with no quote feature it is a joke. That and the fact that it is a total memory hog with web 2.0 scouring of my browser trying to find info to display ads I might want, that it is very unmanageble.
No, I'm too poor to afford a faster computer. Why am I poor? Because I advocate the best mental health care and courts are against it so they deprive me of my constitutional rights while protecting government that violates state health and safety codes.
The director of my counties mental health department approved of my proposal for mental health care so much, she had the chief medical doctor of the department write this letter stating the department was gping to "carry my request forward to the state mental health department". Here is a scan of the letter.
http://i46.tinypic.com/1gook3.jpg
The answer in writing was stopped by the county supervisors because my FOIA request for it which was file stamped and placed in the records of the clerk of the board was removed from the clerks records AND the supervisors records.
http://i46.tinypic.com/20atatx.jpg
Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?
The quote feature would be nice, but are you too lazy to
copy and paste?
Many comments here are quite lengthy, and to quote the whole thing would be absurd and unwanted in many cases. Adding in a script requiring html editor like TinyEdit, which is possible on Drupal, would only cause you to complain even more about how slow the site is.
The owner of this site made trade off decisions between functionality and speed. Every site grapples with this issue.
And on the note of speed, use FF or Chrome. Safari is quite snappy too. If you are still using IE, come out of the Dark Ages. You can also turn off scripting and this site is very fast and still adequately functional. The ads aren't the problem, and though they do bring the site revenue to keep going - you have the option of being a paid member and surfing without them.
Try dismounting your high horse for a spell.
You really expected to make this post here on DP and not get flak for it?
Then I'd say you must be new here. We don't take kindly to being told someone else knows best for us, or what we "have" to do for our own good.
We REALLY don't like new government programs.
You'd do better to sell those wares on DailyKos or HuffPo.
Did you ever understand its not about new
government programs?
It's about government allowing doctors to follow the hippocratic oath. Some want to but are afraid of what will happen when they do something that county level government refused, in violation of law, to allow their own mental health department to do.
Maybe you also missed the fact that the US district court made SECRETE REVISION of their local court rules in order to assure a civil suit seeking to compel compliance with laws was dismissed.
As far as the technology here, this forum and its speed, complexity and serviceability; do you expect Americans to keep up with corporate technology when the government destroys the economy the public must work from?
The lack of a quote feature reduces accountability. Those that would destroy the constitution like that.
Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?
Ok you are doing the same thing
as the original poster. From your own statements, "If we had effective mental health, we would expect things like prediction, diagnosis and ability to better mental conditions." and "so my diagreement was with saying he implied screening which he has stated over and over that he does not imply."
How can you have "prediction" to prevent these things if mandatory screening isn't implied? From what I've seen this guy in the movie theater didn't have a history of mental illness or even a police record. So how is "effective mental health" even play into the fray if it is not made mandatory?
Also you said: "When you mentioned “not considered mentally” ill you again seemed to invoke the current mainstream practices as the source for such considerations." But then you are suggesting that some mainstream method of even wider scope be devised with your very next statement "widen the scope of what is available in the field of “effective mental health and opens numerous possibilities that would provide methods of prediction and diagnosis that could be used with gun control..."
Again how does that mental health, no matter how you define it, prevent anything if mandated screening isn't called for?
The medical industry is destroying this country and I am sorry to say that people that think that it is "necessary" are the ones who are leading the charge of destruction. And the cause of "Prevention" is the cause of limited rights and freedoms.
you are looking too narrowly
It is not about screening the individual gun owner, even though there are clear ways to observe someones propensity toward crime, which I won't discuss here. A person surviving in harmony with his fellow being is obviously less liable to kill his fellows which is more toward the point. Anything that lessens his survival potential will be easily seen to harm his state of mind, even legal crimes like curtailing is freedom of speech or pumping toxins into the water supply, etc.
It is about having a society that is not ever-increasingly causing insanity (for example, shooting people in a theater while doing well at college studies) and using current "mental health" practices as one of its tools to do that.
Our society currently has escalating "mental health" care, especially psychotropic drugs and escalating crime including public killings. They are linked. If we had effective mental health care the opposite would be happening. The military have plenty of health care and plenty of psychotropic drugs together with soaring mental health problems and suicides.
Improvement of general mental health would need removal of government interference and monopolies on psychology and psychiatry. Think of them as the FED of "mental health". They cause the problem and then do more of what they caused to solve it.
Its quite obvious. I am ending on this note.
Gun ownership provides an individual with one form of protection while the transation is made.
Crazy people seek an end to the torment they know
and are angry at society for not having effective relief. They take it out in rage against society generally and kill innocent people.
anothernobody wrote:
"How can you have "prediction" to prevent these things if mandatory screening isn't implied? From what I've seen this guy in the movie theater didn't have a history of mental illness or even a police record. So how is "effective mental health" even play into the fray if it is not made mandatory?"
IF they knew there was relief, they would seek that instead. Gund have nothing to do with it UNLESS they cannot get relief, and they cannot.
Courts and corrupt government assure that, violating laws and rights, the same ones that want your guns.
Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?
Another cognitive failure, no wonder gun rights are leaving
The cognitive infiltrators misrepresenting what I say, using distortions have completely decieved you into thinking as you do about what I say.
Or, you are one of them and pretending you think I say that.
Government and its courts are colluding to violate civil rights and law to deny effective mental health care to protect its secrets and remove citizens guns.
You are helping.
Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?
Another example
"Government and its courts are colluding to violate civil rights and law to deny effective mental health care to protect its secrets and remove citizens guns."
That statement makes no sense. You are one mixed up individual. Or perhaps you have some disorder that interferes with your ability to form a coherent sentence.
"Government and its courts are colluding to violate civil rights and law" That part is clear, understandable and true.
"to deny effective mental health care to protect its secrets and remove citizens guns." Huh?
The only way I can interpret that is that you believe that we have a mental health epidemic and government is trying to deprive us of our much needed mental health treatments. And thus by declaring everyone mentally ill they can remove our guns. This again makes no sense.
If you were capable of clarifying your remarks it would make this much easier. And it would make it easier to take you seriously.
Gun owners
That's a HUGE and diverse group of people to be making sweeping statements about. I have a hard time being accurate in making a sweeping statement about one individual.
You need to be way more specific about what constitutes support for mental health care in your thinking. Does it mean all government funded? Enforced screenings of the general public? Voluntary contributions to diverse programs so that the cream may rise to the top? Promoting educational materials that help people to be able to recognize warning signs?
In any case, someone can completely not believe there is a such thing as mental health and still be for gun rights. I don't see anyone who is going for a max death count in their mass murder scheme figuring a gun range is a place where people are lined up real conveniently and all looking in one direction. No, they pick a movie theater, a gun-free zone.
Defend Liberty!
Mental health is paramount in gun-ownership...
... but not available from governments.
Governments have consistently used "mental health" practices and practitioners for political ends; mainly to lock up dissidents.
Currently, pscyhiatry, using its spurious Diagnostic and Statistic Manual can with 300+ "disorders" can be used to decalre almost anyone mentally ill. The "disorders" are not scientific and get entered into the manual by consensus -- they are voted on.
"Screening" is mainly a maketing tool. WHy else would you have infants fed ant--dpressants in ever-incresing numbers?
Another cognitive infiltrator or someone not reading the OP
and replies.
I do not advocate screening as a condition for gun ownership.
Psychiatry and government collude to prevent effective mental health care. It is part of the infiltraion of US government and usurpation of the constitution.
IF there were effective mental health care, THEN prison populations would reduce and citizens could all have full auto assault weapons, but they wouldn't need them. Oh, and secret treason would be inhibited.
Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?
Chill dude.
I was criticizing your criticizer, not you, and I did not even vaguely imply that you implied screening. You seem a bit over-sensitive. I have clarified for him what you might have clarified. He has good points. And we are on the same side in here. I may have picked up the much broader viewpoint that I think you were trying to get across. I think it now gives a way to see how how gun-control and current monopolistic "mental health" practices both are anti-constitution and anti-libertarian.
Thanks for the clarification-I am over sensitive
because I have endured an immense amount of compromise to my effort to defend the constitution by cognitive infiltrations. I know them and their tactic very well. Unless a poster is very clear about their understanding of the main issue, they may get caught in the counterattacks I present. Sorry:) However, I only do that because I know the sincere will explain themselves as you have.
Perhaps your only failing is widely shared and due to academia and media. People assume, and perhaps you do too, that psychology/psychiatry are allowed to implement whatever treatments work. From the reactions I get from the doctors, they have social fears about this treatment direct to the unconscious with narcohypnosis.
These are very old fears, indeed, genetic memory perhaps causing unconscious retreat from the knowledge or dissociation. They are actually mentally disabled from addressing the problem directly.
Therefore we need an army of citizens, 2nd amendment rights defenders to keep the issue in front of them long enough for them to feel the shame they need to feel to take action.
Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?
Limiting Gun Rights
to those not diagnosed by a licensed psychiatrist as "mentally ill" does not make sense statistically, as the rate of violent crime among the "mentally ill" is lower than the population at large.
As someone who has been diagnosed as schizo-affective, I can attest to why that is the case. Typically, schizophrenics are fairly passive people, even more so if they are schizo-affective and suffer from depression as well. Even if medication is not fully effective in their treatment and they are actively paranoid, their condition actually makes them less likely to interact with people in a violent manner.
In the former USSR, it was quite common for those who dissented from the system to be treated as mentally ill. Although large-scale political repression through the mental health system has not begun yet in this country, it is not a stretch to see it on the horizon. Restricting gun rights for the mentally ill would be the first step in that direction.
he is not talking about limiting...
... he is saying that if effective mental health care were available instead of the Russian-born psychiatry we now have there would be less loonies in the society.
Its a longer term thing.
Shooting people is loony, even though a court might "decide" if he were sane or insane based on an opinion from someone who says the shooter might or might not be "responsible" for it because of insanity.
Your post does not cognit, but fits with the group
as unaccountable as they be, because I do not advocate limiting gun rights in any way.
I have not discussed violent crime and mentally ill.
I have asked if society should have effective mental health care period.
I have asked if 2nd amendment rights advocates should allow the effect of a lack of mental health care to be used as a reason to limit gun rights.
Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?
What a liar
I quote: "because otherwise mentally ill people will have guns and be committing murders. They do and are every day."
And now you say: "I have not discussed violent crime and mentally ill."
I guess murder isn't considered a violent crime in your book. I definitely think your cognitive skills are lacking.
I'd prefer a vision test
lets make dam sure we take dead aim at the a-holes who choose to
eradicate our beloved @nd amendment rights
mental health checkup, where the hell do you get off monk
LOve the R3volution