🇺🇸 Discussion: Guns, The Second Amendment, NRA - Part II

[ComicBookNerd]

What...? That's why policies can be specific. If a mental health screening shows a history of violence or a condition that's associated with dangerous or impulsive behavior it should absolutely be taken into account.

Saying something as vague as "mental health issues" is ridiculous, specific conditions should definitely be considered when deciding whether or not someone should be allowed to own a gun.

It's like saying someone with narcolepsy should be allowed to legally drive a car because you don't want to discriminate against people with neurological disorders.

Psychology is a very vague science, that’s why it’s categorized as a social science at the undergraduate level. This is why people are often misdiagnosed. Let’s not act like this will be a black and white issue, psychology is literally all about the grey area.

 

[TheCommissioner]

You act as if only mental illnesses cause people to do that. The greatest motivations for domestic violence are sex and money.

not at all

if the police come to your house because youve been smacking your SO around, your guns should be seized

you get them back AFTER the issues have been legally resolved

 

[ComicBookNerd]

not at all

if the police come to your house because youve been smacking your SO around, your guns should be seized

you get them back AFTER the issues have been legally resolved

That’s not about having a mental illness, that’s about committing acts of violence.

 

[TheCardPlayer]

Shooter of the week was arrested in July at the White House because he wouldn't leave a restricted area. Said he wanted to meet Donald Trump.

Victims are black and hispanic.

Hmmmm.

 

[Donner]

You act as if only mental illnesses cause people to do that. The greatest motivations for domestic violence are sex and money.

Source?

 

[DeadPresident]

Psychology is a very vague science, that’s why it’s categorized as a social science at the undergraduate level. This is why people are often misdiagnosed. Let’s not act like this will be a black and white issue, psychology is literally all about the grey area.

With all due respect, **** off with that nonsense. Certain elements of psychology are less empirical than others, but psychiatry and neuropsychology are as empirical as it gets, that's why they're considered adjacent to medical disciplines. Conveniently those are the disciplines that would be concerned with making diagnoses or discussing mental conditions associated with violence.

You're dancing around every legitimate rebuttal to your spurious assertions so much I might assume you're Michael Cohen's lawyer in disguise.

 

[ComicBookNerd]

With all due respect, **** off with that nonsense. Certain elements of psychology are less empirical than others, but psychiatry and neuropsychology are as empirical as it gets, that's why they're considered adjacent to medical disciplines. Conveniently those are the disciplines that would be concerned with making diagnoses or discussing mental conditions associated with violence.

You're dancing around every legitimate rebuttal to your spurious assertions so much I might assume you're Michael Cohen's lawyer in disguise.

You’re looking at things in a biological sense, which is irrelevant to determining whether someone is mentally fit. The field that determines whether someone is mentally fit is clinical psychology, which is as subjective as it gets.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

You’re looking at things in a biological sense, which is irrelevant to determining whether someone is mentally fit. The field that determines whether someone is mentally fit is clinical psychology, which is as subjective as it gets.

You can look at all the data in the last 50 years and it categorically points to those afflicted with actual, diagnosed mental illness (e.g. schizophrenia, clinical depression, autism, etc) are much more likely to BE the victims of violence. Not the cause.

Almost all of the cases I can think of from recent memory (outside of Gifford's shooter) were actually uneducated, misguided, angry a**holes.

It's a lot easier for everyone to swallow if they are labeled "mentally ill" instead of realizing the actual root cause of why these individuals do what they did.

Conveniently, it also allows society to distance themselves from the actions as opposed to realizing some of the some thoughts/beliefs they may share with the individuals.

 

[Ouch]

You can look at all the data in the last 50 years and it categorically points to those afflicted with actual, diagnosed mental illness (e.g. schizophrenia, clinical depression, autism, etc) are much more likely to BE the victims of violence. Not the cause.

Almost all of the cases I can think of from recent memory (outside of Gifford's shooter) were actually uneducated, misguided, angry a**holes.

It's a lot easier for everyone to swallow if they are labeled "mentally ill" instead of realizing the actual root cause of why these individuals do what they did.

Conveniently, it also allows society to distance themselves from the actions as opposed to realizing some of the some thoughts/beliefs they may share with the individuals.

Agreed 100%. It also increases the stigma for those of us with diagnosed mental illnesses.

 

[ComicBookNerd]

You can look at all the data in the last 50 years and it categorically points to those afflicted with actual, diagnosed mental illness (e.g. schizophrenia, clinical depression, autism, etc) are much more likely to BE the victims of violence. Not the cause.

Almost all of the cases I can think of from recent memory (outside of Gifford's shooter) were actually uneducated, misguided, angry a**holes.

It's a lot easier for everyone to swallow if they are labeled "mentally ill" instead of realizing the actual root cause of why these individuals do what they did.

Conveniently, it also allows society to distance themselves from the actions as opposed to realizing some of the some thoughts/beliefs they may share with the individuals.

I agree, blaming things on mental illness is the modern version of blaming things on violent video games. It’s more of a distraction than it is a solution. If people really thought mental illness was the problem, then they would want to increase people’s access to mental health treatment, which is something most conservatives oppose.

 

[DeadPresident]

You’re looking at things in a biological sense, which is irrelevant to determining whether someone is mentally fit. The field that determines whether someone is mentally fit is clinical psychology, which is as subjective as it gets.

You're talking about psychology from the 1950s - if you looked at the field now it leans heavily towards a neuropsychological and psychiatric approach which is highly scientific. What else would you call observation and manipulation of neurotransmitter activity? It's becoming a controllable science far faster than you seem to be entertaining, and the understanding and intervention in dysfunctional behavior is improving rapidly.

Biology absolutely has an effect on mental condition, suggesting otherwise seems truly bizarre.

 

[chaseter]

I agree, blaming things on mental illness is the modern version of blaming things on violent video games. It’s more of a distraction than it is a solution. If people really thought mental illness was the problem, then they would want to increase people’s access to mental health treatment, which is something most conservatives oppose.

I don’t see Democrats pushing for massive mental health funding legislation either. No one wants to deal with it.

 

[squeekness]

Universal health care might.

 

[moviedoors]

Universal health care might.

But how many Democrats openly support universal health care? The best I can find by google is about 15, supporting a bill proposed by a guy whose name you can't say around here without Matt having a conniption.

 

[squeekness]

I honestly dont know. I do know that I live in a blue state and every one I talk to wants universal care, for whatever that's worth.

 

[ComicBookNerd]

I don’t see Democrats pushing for massive mental health funding legislation either. No one wants to deal with it.

Not sure about Democrats, but liberals are far more likely to support universal healthcare than conservatives. Unless you’re willing to provide more people with healthcare coverage, then talking about mental illnesses is a moot point; if anything, it’s just a red herring.

 

[ComicBookNerd]

You're talking about psychology from the 1950s - if you looked at the field now it leans heavily towards a neuropsychological and psychiatric approach which is highly scientific. What else would you call observation and manipulation of neurotransmitter activity? It's becoming a controllable science far faster than you seem to be entertaining, and the understanding and intervention in dysfunctional behavior is improving rapidly.

Biology absolutely has an effect on mental condition, suggesting otherwise seems truly bizarre.

There are many strides taking place in neuropsychology, but there is very little neuropsychology involved with psychoanalysis, which determines whether or not a person is mentally fit.

 

[moviedoors]

I honestly dont know. I do know that I live in a blue state and every one I talk to wants universal care, for whatever that's worth.

That’s what I’ve been able to gather; amongst Democrat voters: very popular. Amongst elected officials: not so much.

 

[DeadPresident]

There are many strides taking place in neuropsychology, but there is very little neuropsychology involved with psychoanalysis, which determines whether or not a person is mentally fit.

I don't mean to sound like an ***hole, but psychoanalysis is merely Freud's branch of psychological therapy, it's not the only method of diagnosis. Actual diagnostics as determined by the DSM has moved far beyond traditional counseling methods as their only option to diagnose. There's a reason almost every GP has a copy of the DSM on their table, and it's because psychology as a discipline is moving more in the direction of biological and chemical intervention rather than therapy or counseling based.

All of clinical psychology in the next 50 years will probably be swallowed up by neuropsychology because the technology at a researcher's disposal is getting sophisticated enough to manipulate behavior at the biological level, not the social.

 

[MaceB]

Neuroscience is definitely taking huge strides, but I think there will always be a place for good old fashioned talk therapy. Myself, I'm a believer in psychoanalysis.
Human beings are pretty predictable honestly... if you were beat up by your dad as a kid, then all things being equal, you'll most likely be an abuser as an adult. Maybe the physical sciences will get to a place where they can pinpoint that trauma in the brain and eradicate it before it develops... but for the next few decades at least, the only way to work through that trauma is good old fashioned talk therapy.
It gets a bad rap and I don't know why.

 

[ComicBookNerd]

I don't mean to sound like an ***hole, but psychoanalysis is merely Freud's branch of psychological therapy, it's not the only method of diagnosis. Actual diagnostics as determined by the DSM has moved far beyond traditional counseling methods as their only option to diagnose. There's a reason almost every GP has a copy of the DSM on their table, and it's because psychology as a discipline is moving more in the direction of biological and chemical intervention rather than therapy or counseling based.

All of clinical psychology in the next 50 years will probably be swallowed up by neuropsychology because the technology at a researcher's disposal is getting sophisticated enough to manipulate behavior at the biological level, not the social.

It’s moving in the right direction, but it’s not there yet. As it stands now, it’s based purely on psychological profiles and trial & error. If any other medical profession had as many misdiagnosises as psychiatric care, the malpractice lawsuits would go through the roof & nearly every doctor would have their license taken away. As of now, clinical psychology just isn’t an exact science, so taking away someone’s rights based on the opinions of people in that profession doesn’t sit well. If you want to take away gun rights based on a record of violent behavior, I’m all for that, but not based on the opinion of a psychologist/psychiatrist.

 

[ComicBookNerd]

Neuroscience is definitely taking huge strides, but I think there will always be a place for good old fashioned talk therapy. Myself, I'm a believer in psychoanalysis.
Human beings are pretty predictable honestly... if you were beat up by your dad as a kid, then all things being equal, you'll most likely be an abuser as an adult. Maybe the physical sciences will get to a place where they can pinpoint that trauma in the brain and eradicate it before it develops... but for the next few decades at least, the only way to work through that trauma is good old fashioned talk therapy.
It gets a bad rap and I don't know why.

I’m fine if someone wants to see a psychologist/psychiatrist to work out their personal problems, but I don’t think a psychologist/psychiatrist should be able to determine if certain people should have their rights taken away. As of yet, the field of psychology generally doesn’t have enough credibility as an actual science. It’s getting there, but it’s not there yet. It’s sort of like economics, where it comes off as a field of finance, but it’s really a social science.

 

[chaseter]

Not sure about Democrats, but liberals are far more likely to support universal healthcare than conservatives. Unless you’re willing to provide more people with healthcare coverage, then talking about mental illnesses is a moot point; if anything, it’s just a red herring.

Saying you are for UHC without details or substance is just as good as an unfulfilled campaign promise. I don’t see successful State run mental health facilities in Democrat run States. Why? They don’t want to pay for it. When you realize that career politicians (Right or Left) don’t care about us...you’ll see the light.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

I agree, blaming things on mental illness is the modern version of blaming things on violent video games. It’s more of a distraction than it is a solution. If people really thought mental illness was the problem, then they would want to increase people’s access to mental health treatment, which is something most conservatives oppose.

I don’t see Democrats pushing for massive mental health funding legislation either. No one wants to deal with it.

Slippery slope in fell effect. It's easy to blame mental illness because it's a catch all term. Who decides what is and isn't a mental illness worthy of taking away an American's 2nd amendment right?

Dems know the second they push that issue even slightly almost regardless of how sane/insane the proposal is the Right will rally around it saying Dr's and Dems want to take your guns.

We already have the societal stigma as Ouch mentioned but adding losing a weapon either temporarily or permanently on top of a possible psychiatric hold would more than likely cause a significant decrease in those seeking early help before issues can become problematic.

It's a can of worms this country has continually tried to sweep under the rug every year resulting in an ever so slight up-tick in mass shootings every year.

IMO Dems may give a lot of lip service on the issue but nobody pushes for actual reform because it's political suicide currently and in years past. We'll see if the trend continues or if these generations growing up with school shootings as a regular occurrence changes that tide.

 

[MaceB]

I’m fine if someone wants to see a psychologist/psychiatrist to work out their personal problems, but I don’t think a psychologist/psychiatrist should be able to determine if certain people should have their rights taken away. As of yet, the field of psychology generally doesn’t have enough credibility as an actual science. It’s getting there, but it’s not there yet. It’s sort of like economics, where it comes off as a field of finance, but it’s really a social science.

It's all we've got. There's no machine that exists (or possibly will ever exist) that can scan your brain and go, "uh oh, there's the violence gene, no gun for you." Even if such a thing existed, it'd fall into pre-crime and I wouldn't support it.
It makes sense to want a short cut, but there is none. The only way to tell if a person is a danger to others is to evaluate them through conversation, and then to have a professional make a judgement. It takes time... weeks, months, years.

Luckily, psychoanalysis does give us way to find these people. If physically and sexually abused kids were able to be spotted early and partnered with a government provided therapist, it's very possible that it could have very positive results. Again, folks are predictable... now we know thanks to psychoanalysis. A college grad who grew up in a loving home is simply not going to turn all of sudden into a homicidal maniac. A high school dropout who never had a real family home on the other hand... bingo... that's the kind of person who is susceptible to mental health issues, and should be highlighted as someone who could need our help before it becomes a problem.