Mental illness diagnosis leads to criminalization?

C

Creature

Moderator
Today a close friend was called a "gun nut" by a co-worker who overheard a coversation he was having with me during his lunch break. We were talking about various topics ranging from RKBA and the choice of a handgun for persons of various physical stature and skill.

Later, he was approached by a supervisor who asked that he refrain from discussing firearms among some coworkers who are "still sensitive about the VT shootings"...though no one at that company has any relatives..or friends even...who were directly involved.

In fact, that person who overheard my friend's conversation suggested that he should be made to get a psychological evaluation to "protect the company and it's employees".

I was dumbstruck when my friend called and told me about this just a few hours ago. Now I am just mad. My friend, the epitome of stability and calm, has been labeled a gun-nut in the worst sense of the term simply because of a conversation that we here in the forum take for granted as quite normal.

Is this becoming a witch hunt for the Anti's? Are we "gun nuts" in danger of being criminalized because someone thinks that our interest in guns is a symptom of mental infirmity?
 
yeah sounds like you and your friend should have your lawyers give your boss a call about a suit for disrcrimation in the workplace.

that may make him think twice about that evaluation and listining to that anti-weasel
 
I was thinking about just smiling and saying ok to the boss until the lawyer hits him with a subpoena to be a witness in the slander suit against the paranoid co-worker. ;)
that person who overheard my friend's conversation
Click to expand...
 
I actually suggested a slander suit, but it wasn't long before we both agreed that we wouldn't have much of a case. We wouldn't get very far if he pushed an invasion of privacy complaint either because it was a conversation on a company phone in an office environment. In fact, if that nosy jacka@# wanted to push back, he or she could complain that my buddy was "disturbing the peace" of something by having that conversation over the phone with me on the other end.
 
I sadly feel there will be a time when a mental check is required for a concealed weapons permit, and unfortunately that time is quickly approaching and once you fail that then what happens to you as a gun owner.

This is definatley another way to pass legislation that will keep guns out of lawful citizens hands.
 
Words don't change, but popular meanings do

Perhaps your friend should have responded with "I am not a gun nut, I am a gun GEEK!"

Not so many years ago, back when gay meant happy and jolly, and nothing else, any enthusiast of a sport was a "nut" about it. Baseball nuts, football nuts, golf nuts, car nuts, gun nuts, and of course, beer nuts, etc. Also back in those days, a geek was a circus act that often involved a man biting the head off a live chicken!

The NRA magazine has run a technical evaluation section called "the dope bag" for over 50 years. The name comes from the expression "getting the straight dope", which meant getting the correct information. I commend the NRA for not bowing to PC madness and renaming the column. What they do nowdays is run a small sidebar in the column explaining the origin of the name.

today, popular usage has changed the definition of words, some to the point where only "us old pharts" remember the original usage.

I suggest "gun geek", because today, "nut" implies mental instability to many people, while "geek" seems to imply "expert" or gifted amateur, as in "Computer Geek".

Slander laws are slippery and difficult to prove, but a "hostile work environment" situation might be a possiblity. The co-worker's comment about being concerned is one thing, the suggestion that your friend needs a mental evaluation is something else again. And you may have grounds for action because of it. Check your emplyment contract, and contact your company's HR dept. You can treat this nearly the same as a sexual harrasment case, except without the sexual part. Make the intrusive PC rules work for us for a change, if you can!

Good Luck.
 
Creature:

Unfortunately, the attitude of the "nosy jacka@#" seems to be more and more prevalent, especially amongst the "urban lemming" types. The mainstream media has been very efficient at their brainwashing. :barf:

Keep up the good fight! :)
 
Boy, that's funny.

Earlier this week in another thread, I mentioned that the mental status (in this case mis-perceived) and the ownership of guns was a very serious issue.

Many of you told me that there was no danger of losing enumerated rights and patients had to be adjudicated.

Now all of you want to sue.

Why? You haven't been adjudicated. Your guns are still safe. And you're probably not a whacko.

But how did it feel? For that one moment you had been treated as a second class citizen, a company doctor was requested and a job might be lost.

This is a very big deal. Adjudication means nothing overall.
 
It not the guns you lose first.....

It is your job!

The GOVT can't bar you from owning guns due to your mental attitude, EXCEPT if you are adjudicated by a court as unsuitable (unstable, incompetent, etc.) That is the legal limit.

However, the danger here is from your employer, not the govt! Your employer won't ban you from owning guns, but they can ban you from working for them. And not because you are actually any danger or threat, because of lemming co-workers who feel threatened by the very fact that you like (or, horrors!, actually own) guns! There are lots of wiggle room here, but the bottom line is, if they think they need to get rid of you "for the good of the company". they will find some valid reason, and make it stick.

I am not saying you should hide, or knuckle under, just be aware that the world is full of people who fear what they do not understand, and don't want to have their fears upset by learning the truth that you can like guns without an inner desire to kill people. That sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and a joke is just a joke.

And some of these people work with us, and sometimes employ us, totally fine with us, UNTIL they learn that we like guns/shooting/hunting/etc. Then they start to come unglued. Frankly, I worry more bout them than I do us.
 
By all means, go to your HR department and ask them to define the kinds of things that might create a "hostile work environment". At some point after some examples are given, ask something like "I one of my coworkers is discussing fishing and I hear another coworker claim that fishing is 'disgusting, cruel or sick' and then suggest that the fisherman should be sent to a psychiatrist, would that be a hostile work environment? Especially if they complained to the coworker's boss and he takes some action, like telling him to quit talking about fishing?"

If the answer is yes, then get your friend to write up a complaint against the coworker for creating a hostile work environment. The complaint should stress that the conversation "overheard" was a hobbyist or sportsman's conversation regarding a legal, lawful pursuit and the coworker's suggestion that it is equal to a mental disorder creates a concern that the coworker is overreacting out of some anxiety, but to the detriment of others.
 
Your buddy probably should leave well enough alone and quit talking about guns at work unless he wants another job.

Otherwise he's going to get fired based on the current workplace violence prevention ideas.

http://management.about.com/gi/dyna...s/handbooksguides/WorkplaceViolence/p1-s3.asp

Indicators of potentially violent behavior

  • Direct or veiled threats of harm;
  • Intimidating, belligerent, harassing, bullying, or other inappropriate and aggressive behavior;
  • Numerous conflicts with supervisors and other employees;
  • Bringing a weapon to the workplace, brandishing a weapon in the workplace, making inappropriate references to guns, or fascination with weapons;
  • Statements showing fascination with incidents of workplace violence, statements indicating approval of the use of violence to resolve a problem, or statements indicating identification with perpetrators of workplace homicides;
  • Statements indicating desperation (over family, financial, and other personal problems) to the point of contemplating suicide;
  • Drug/alcohol abuse; and
  • Extreme changes in behaviors.
Each of these behaviors is a clear sign that something is wrong. None should be ignored. ​
I am not saying he fits any of those categories, but clearly his coworker and supervisor feel he made "inappropriate references to guns" so he's already displayed a "clear sign that something is wrong" according to these guidelines. Some workplaces are VERY gun-shy and some of those "indicators" are quite subjective...
 
In right-to-work states, the employer doesn't need a "valid reason," as long as the worker isn't in a protected class.
 
Thank the Good Lord above that I work where firearms use is part of the job...get to go shoot on thier time on Monday. Best of luck to your friend, sir. I agree on the hostile work environment, don't knuckle under, whatever the prevailing attitudes are. The reason they ARE prevailing is because of people hunkering down, and muttering, "Hope this blows over...", and they people who call us nut jobs, etc., make thier definitions stick. Have him get with the NRA or other pro rights groups, if any more negative action ensues.
 
Hehe, the Urban Lemmings comment made me laugh- I'm here in the San Diego area, and I see so many of them. They are plugged into their I-Pods, televisions, dance clubs, and shopping malls like it is going to go out of style or something. I can't even see as a lot of them actually get out and do a whole lot. I mean sure, some of them go to the beach to show off their cloths and plastic body augmentations... But, I am seriously starting to think that what this country needs is a little more out in nature time. Gotta go to work!
 
You may hate to hear this but JohnKSa is right. That list is Human Resources 101. What is more while the statement:
Each of these behaviors is a clear sign that something is wrong. None should be ignored.
Click to expand...
is vastly overblown the truth is in the vast majority of workplace rampage shootings and violence involving a firearm the criminal was well known to have a fascination with firearms.

Cause and Effect are tricky things to work out and the two are often confused.

Just because rampage killers show a fascination with firearms does not mean firearms fascination means you are a violent risk for the workplace. The fact though that the murderer is likely to show the fascination with firearms means it should be a sign watched for. What should also be done is watch for ALL the signs and do not over react to any one but that is not how people operate.

The bottom line is that if you are known as the office gun person odds are you are the one they humorously make the jokes about. "Don't upset Jim, ha ha..." Those jokes are a way for many people who know no better to vent their concerns in a way that is non-confrontational. If you have those jokes made about you it is important you realize there are people around you who at least subconsciously are worried about you.

The vast amount of people out there are sheep and they also put no more thought into the subject of firearms than the nightly news of violence and Hollywood movies. THAT is the perception that is present when they see you with a gun magazine or talking about a range trip. I am not saying all people are like this in all areas but many are and even more so in more urban areas. Be in a purely white collar environment in a liberal state in an urban area surrounded by college educated individuals and it is almost certain; I know, I am.

You may not like that it is smart to maintain a low key about firearms in your workplace. If you work in a field of sheep though it is easier not to spook them.
 
Musketeer said:
Just because rampage killers show a fascination with firearms does not mean firearms fascination means you are a violent risk for the workplace.
Click to expand...

Because this topic involves the idea of mental illness, your argument, which you assume is logical, is simply meaningless circular logic.

If you are mentally ill (which could mean the inability to sleep without the periodic use of medicine) then by definition you are mentally ill. Get it? Yes, that's what I said, if you are mentally ill then by definition you are mentally ill.

Being in a "protected class" is not as much of a safety net as you would believe. Oh, you can go to your personnel department and ask for protection under The Disabilities Act. However as a nuclear scientist you might be transfered out to the loading dock--the only other job they have open.

Your employer can call for more tests. Your refusal might in and of itself get you fired. And once tabbed as mentally ill you are about a seven minute court proceding from being locked up without enumerated rights.

Are you now getting the picture?

Yes, you can blame the sheeple, your gutless personnel department, the trade winds or a co-worker with an agenda.

But in the end, that Trazadone your doc gave you twelve years ago for episodic sleeplessness will wind up tossing you into the boat with me.

Okay, sure, you will not be able to own guns anymore, but the finger paints are quite colorful...
 
Tourist, what on earth are you talking about? The OP was about a worker being labeled a "gun nut" and therefore classified as a possible danger in the workplace. Sleeping problems and anything else of the sort has nothing to do with this.

I was referring to the well established and observed relationship between workplace rampage killers and gun fascination. I was pointing out that while there was a recognized one way relationship between the two the same cannot be said in reverse. The presence of any such relationship though is likely to result in your classification as a possible threat in the current work environment.

Adjudication for mental illness with the removal of firearms rights after being confirmed a threat to yourself and others is another thread entirely.
 
Musketeer said:
Tourist, what on earth are you talking about? The OP was about a worker being labeled a "gun nut" and therefore classified as a possible danger in the workplace.
Click to expand...

In the State Of Wisconsin, an employee working for the State or The University of Wisconsin can be ordered to see a psychiatrist as a condition of his/her continued employment.

This has happened due to rumors and innuendo being reported to a department supervisor.

That's right, you can be removed from your job duties due to a rumor.

Edit: Being labeled as "mentally ill" forces you into the problem of being guilty until proven innocent. In fact, I could literally destroy your life by getting enough people concerned about your mental stability.

I have looked into my own wife's eyes. Trust me, get the label, your life is gone. From there, it's an easy step to stripping you of your enumerated rights.
 
Last edited:
That's right, you can be removed from your job duties due to a rumor.
Click to expand...

You are making a rather large leap. Any female coworker can start a rumor that you are a serial sexual harasser and you COULD be removed from your job, but just like the issue in this thread there is a path that must be followed.

You refer to being labeled mentally ill. It all though comes down to who applies the label and what really is the label. Is it a label of mild depression or is it a label of being a sociopath prone to psychotic episodes.

Every investigation, justified or unjustified, begins with a rumor. The point of the investigation is to verify the rumor, not to prove it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top