Question for Psychologists / Psychiatrists

I don't think there has been really fine analysis of the issue on the personality structure of rabid RKBA vs anti RKBA types
or the owners of various type of guns.

There are data suggesting that "assault weapons" (barf) seem to cue more aggressive thoughts in people - but that's still being looked at.

There are giant controversies about gun ownership predicting suicide and on the other hand how psychiatric treatment has no predictive validity for banning folks from being gun owners. See the VA ban threads for two studies I cite.

I might note that being rabid on anything is not a good sign. One should be logical.

Kal-el is on the money that the issue is to use modern persuasive techniques to convince the public that gun ownership is a positive benefit.

Unfortunately, the NRA is bereft of a strategic plan to do so and arguments that sell to the choir may leave the public cold or are in fact counter-productive.

Note: This discussion was based on searches of the technical literature and discussions with professionals and academics who are proRKBA.
 
What I can't fathom is how anyone could ignore common logic and reason. I can understand someone being against this or that, but that said person doesn't do the research before they pronounce their beliefs is incredible.

Rosie could have a basic dislike for weapons, which Freud says is indicative of sexual immaturity (which Ro seems to cement), but to not look into the subject (from both sides) and look into the studies that the studies are based on, is beyond imagining. Common sense says that you should take everything with a grain of salt and do the homework.

Of course, I would agree with the original premise as I've seen entirely too large a segment of the anti-gun movement show a basic immaturity. One might even go so far as to say that they never fully developed in the first place!

------------------
When Reason Fails.....
 
I'm no psychologist, but I worked in a psych ward for two years. Anti-RKBA fall into a few categories of mental illness, which I've had the opportunity to observe, but have been unable to articulate until I read an RLK piece called "A Problem With Guns?" I'm unable to treat mental illness beyond basic mental first aid, that is, preventing them from harming themselves or others, but I can recognize sick behavior, rather like a paramedic can recognize a heart attack and perform basic CPR.

You've got people who've suffered grievous loss and think that banning guns will solve the problems.

You've got your Nurse Ratched types who know that most violence in the USA is not gun related, who only want a disarmed populace who'll continue to be victimized while they, the "therapeutic matriarchs," have total control over the administration of force. They also cackle with fiendish glee at the trouble they cause.
You've also got totalitarians operating from a classic paranoid reversal complex: they see anyone's ability for self defense to oppose their power seizure schemes as a threat to their ability to prey on the defenseless. "You're safe and don't threaten me if you draw a dotted line on your neck, hand me a razor, and let me be able to cut your throat whenever I want."

The common thread through all of this is mental illness: denying basic reality coupled with grandiose delusions of megalomania and special entitlement.

In short, the lunatics have taken over the asylum, and rather than trying to get cured to be able to relate to reality, they're trying to twist reality to fit their delusions. They want to drive us all as crazy as they are.

They see anyone who practices basic mental hygiene as a threat to their twisted sense of self importance.

Show me an anti-gunner and I'll show you a baker's dozen of personality disorders.



[This message has been edited by Munro Williams (edited June 22, 2000).]
 
Munro - that's horsepoop.

I will give you a logical problem. I can introduce you to many people who were anti-gun. Then, because they studied the issue, were involved in an incident or something else happened, became pro-RKBA.

Now, personality disorders are defined, severe and known to be very difficult to treat. One would know this if you actually had real knowledge of the field.

Thus, when some folks became pro-gun, it then cured all the various personality disorders.
Right.

This is getting boring and I'm losing interest in the discussion.

Here's what's happening. In a social inference situation, those who believe in one side of an issue, demonize the other.

They also think the other side must be mentally ill.

They look for an incident that supports them and fail to systematically evaluate the evidence.

They get mad if evidence doesn't support their self-serving belief.

If you want to actually talk technical psychology - know something about it.

I would suggest that before one argues these points, you read a little about research design and human inference errors.

Geez - this is a perfect example, if you don't get an answer that confirms what you want to hear - you ignore the evidence.

[This message has been edited by Glenn E. Meyer (edited June 23, 2000).]
 
Hey there, Glenn,
You've got a nice web page.
That being said, all I can glean from your post is that you disagree with mine, vehemently so. In what ways do you find my assessment of anti-RKBA folks faulty? You do not provide a how or a why, and merely express disdain. This does not persuade me. A glib response does not a rebuttal make. Your post is "all powder and no ball."
 
That's a legitimate question.

Given the defintions of personality disorder as found in the DSM-IV, my searches of the literature using PsychLit and other professional references services find no evidence that these specific disorders are more prevalent or less prevalent depending on gun ownership.

Nor do literature searchs and studies of the personality structures of studies on gun owners demonstrated any superiority of the latter or vice versa.

In fact, antis have tried to prove that gun owners are more likely to have problems and be suicide prone. But while the debate continues, it hasn't held up.

Anybody can go to a university library and do the research, if you doubt me. Using defined terms needs evidence.
 
Glenn,
Like I posted earlier my mental health work is strictly of the first aid type. I worked on a psych ward for two years following the nurses' instructions. I am able to recognize crazy people when I see them.
I live in Japan and every day run into weird behavior that can't be explained without the words paranoia, manipulation, or delusion.
Then came more and more news from home about Clinton. I quit worrying about Japan.
The more I read about Clinton and his special friends the more and more I was reminded of some adolescent psychiatric patients I've had to deal with: compulsive liars with no sense of remorse who cannot be left alone for a minute without causing themselves or others serious harm. This worried me greatly and still does.

I was able to read a series about psychotic social psychology here:
http://www.zolatimes.com/writers/kocher.html


These articles articulated thoughts I was previously unable to put into words. As I'm sure you may have guessed, I do not have a copy of the DSM lying about, but I do know what words like "megalomania," "grandiose delusion," "sadist," and "paranoid reversal" mean. One does not need a Ph. D. to understand that people like the Clintons, the Feinsteins, and the Carvilles are people with serious mental health problems.

Anyone who'll argue the definition of the word "is" or "sex" is either nuts, a liar, or both. The fact that this man is President tells me a lot about the state of the mental health of the population of the USA.

Isn't the denial of reality the defining feature of madness? Isn't that what makes insanity insane? Isn't being a danger to self, others, and being unable to care for self cause for hospitalization? It sure was when I was wearing a white lab coat.

[This message has been edited by Munro Williams (edited June 24, 2000).]
 
No, anti-gunners are no more insane than we are. I'm sure many of them are insane, irrational, etc., but I've seen far too many RKBA proponents that were one step above drooling sub-moron to take too much stock in that. Many on our side love to castigate our opponents for their supposed illogical rationalizations of their emotional prejudices, and while that is not untrue, it is often a case of the pot calling the kettle black. There are many prejudices and fears on our side that don't stand up to rational examination. More later. My concentration is wandering.
 
With aplogies to Dr. Meyer. Much of the AntiRKBA feeling can be explained by one statement.

"I want the world to be safe for me and my family, The only way that can happen is if I remove all danger" The average anti believes that statement. Until we who believe in RKBA can get people who feel that way to accept that all danger canot be removed from life and that sometimes s**t happens and the best way to deal with at is to be ready for it to happen we will always be fighting a losing war. It is not that we are better or that they are worse it is just that beliefs are different. IMHO The only way we are going to win is to whenever possible fight the anti misconception or should I say perception?

------------------
A Life Well Lived Is The Best Revenge!
http://home.earthlink.net/~mzanghe/index.html
 
Gee, I wish I would stop reading this thread.

Mz - I agree with your main point. There are different paths to safety. Many antis like the avoidance strategy.

Is that measurable psychopathology and is this belief correlated with other defined psychopathologies. Probably not.

We need to make the case.

I'm done with being group psychologist though.
:) . I've made my point to the initial question.

Discuss among yourselves :) :)
 
I was not trying to say that the viewpoint of anti-rkba folks was a measurable pathology.
I was merely trying to suggest that the two sides start from opposite hypotheses and that is why there is often a perception of mental illness (from both sides I might add!) The logic of one side is inconceivable to the other because they start from completely different points. I ended by saying that the only way rkba folks are going to win this is by trying to persuade the anti that their perfectly safe world is not going to happen so quite trying to take away my rights! :p


------------------
A Life Well Lived Is The Best Revenge! http://home.earthlink.net/~mzanghe/index.html

[This message has been edited by mzanghetti (edited June 25, 2000).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top