The Language of Mental Illness in Gun Debates

Fat is not in the DSM - but - hey - why do I have belts that don't fit anymore.

Look at the debate about Lanza - he has a diagnosis of X - well, that's going away as it was found to be a distinction without use, now he will have Y.

So, if you proposed a new gun law that people with X couldn't own a gun = OOPS.

Using terms from ancient diagnostic categories or using them incorrectly, doesn't do us any good.

Antigunners propose stupid Freudian analogies on how gun folks have little ... and compensate. Cooper using a made up Freudian analogy had as much validity.

I should add that many of the foolish things said by folks like Bloomberg are part of selective information processing where you only pay attention to what confirms your beliefs. This is just normal cognition (see Kahneman) and is something everyone does across the political spectrum. I could cite blatant foolishness from left or right but won't to avoid politics. If those mechanisms are mental illness - then most people are nuts.
 
sigmund freud was the first to recognize a mental condition pertaining to a fear of weapons.

He beleived that it was an indicator of sexual and social immaturity.
 
Glenn, my dictionary defines a "phobia" as "an irrational fear of an object or situation". Is that what the professional definition is (this week)?
 
You know, Glenn, I hear what you're saying, and I'm a quasi-mental health professional (MA in Counseling Psychology, Certificate in Clinical Hypnotherapy), but I'm not sure the '30s category of "Mad Dog Killer" isn't the most appropriate diagnosis. :p
 
"metrics" to aid firearm purchases or possesion(s)...

To me there are a few ways govt agencies could gauge if a person is competent or stable to buy-carry firearms. Some are already in place others could be added;
If they are under 18 years old(depending on local hunting laws or target use). If a illegal alien or fugitive/pending criminal charges/convictions of violent crime or felonys. Persons with less than honorable discharges or general under honorable conditions should not be allowed to buy or carry guns. Persons with active trespass notices or bar/not allowed on property in the state or jurisdiction where they reside should be allowed to buy guns or ammunition. Persons with PFAs/restraining orders etc filed against them(like the federal Lautenberg Law). Persons who get any documented disability, aid or pension related to a mental health disorder or inability to maintain gainful employment due to a stress/social disorder(PTSD/ADD/clinical depression/suicide attempts/involitary commitment/etc). This includes military/combat veterans or public service employees who retire-separate due to mental health issues. People who can not safely load, unload, operate, or carry a firearm due to injury or medical condition. LE agencies must separate recruits or applicants all the time because they can't safely fire or function with a loaded firearm. It happens often. People or students who apply for state or public education and are declined due to severe mental disorders or unstable conduct(threats, fights, expulsions due to safety related violations, harassment-stalking).
These are a few public laws or policy issues that could come up. These are just examples & are subject to modification due to HIPPA laws, court rulings, etc.

Dr Drew Pensky(Dr Drew) made a great, 2A supporting point a few weeks ago that many unstable & dangerous people buy guns or get weapons only because of the stupid restrictions & legal hassles they put on mental health professionals.
Those loop-holes need more close inspection than gun bans or anti gun laws.

Clyde
 
Just an observation - in some threads, I see folks throwing around psychological or psychiatric terms that are misused, obsolete or misinterpreted.

If you want to claim someone is phobic - know what that means. If you want to use the term neurotic - that's quite out of style.

If you want to say that all should be tested for mental stability for getting a gun - what does that mean? Do you know anything about the predictive validity of current evaluative instruments?

Folks are emptying themselves into their underpants if someone seems to misuse clip, magazine, assault rife, assault weapon, etc. Thus, the misuse seems to be an argument that the anti's argument is unworthy because of misuse.

But then you argue about a technical field and sound to an expert, equally silly.
Think about it.
Click to expand...
+

Good post. This has been bothering me a lot. Folks here and on other popular firearm forums are quick to condemn folks with mental illnesses and the medical care these people receive, without any background knowledge or basic understanding of these illnesses. Take these examples:

Argument 1: "we have these dang hoplophobic schizos with Asperger's syndrome who are crazy, and the dang doctors are overprescribing crazy pills and making them even crazier, and that's making them go shoot up schools..."

Argument 2: "We have these high-powered, military-style assualt-weapons with high-capacity clips that are killing people."

Argument 1 is every bit as ridiculous to someone who has basic knowledge of mental health as argument 2 is to most responsible and knowledgeable firearm owners.

What's the correct answer or response to violence, specifically to these massacres that are gaining publicity? I don't pretend to have it. The assertion that " issues at hand are certainly complex" isn't just a copout... it's the reality of it. But I think the point is that we need to be somewhat informed to have meaningful discussions about these things, instead of just responding emotionally with the first thing that pops into our heads. Uninformed, emotional responses regarding mental health is not too different than saying "well why do you need a gun that shoots as fast as you can pull the trigger, and has a clip that hold 30 rounds? You don't need that for hunting. Only the military and police should have access to..."

To someone who has never participated in firearm ownership and/or payed attention in history class, these may seem to be legitimate questions. However, with a little research... answers can be found. It goes both ways.
 
"Dr. Steinberg is right that some practitioners are insufficiently interested in treating serious disorders. We do need mobile early intervention teams, collaboration among community mental health professionals and police, and less reliance on medications. Our people deserve better access to known best practices, true insurance parity and affordable, accessible services.
A nation can stop rampages, but it is doubtful that a more restrictive, coercive mental health system will help achieve that goal."

Quote from: Kenneth J, Gill, Letters to the editor, The New York Times, Wednesday, January 2, 2013.

'The writer is chairman of the department of psychiatric rehabilitation and counseling professions, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey.'

I tend to agree with Kenneth J. Gill's opinions on this subject, who was responding to an Op-Ed essay by Paul Steinberg in yesterday's {?} NYT's.
 
OK, . . . I'm old fashioned, . . . and maybe a bit on the "old" side with or without the fashion.

BUT, . . . when I was younger, . . . there were folks who just did not have their mental "facilities" together.

The ones who displayed a propensity for violence, a danger to others, etc. were summarily hauled off, . . . and a discussion and dispensation were done later.

My point? The were removed from society when it became apparent that there were flaws within their mental makeup that were dangerous.

Yes, . . . one of my aunts was in the psych hospital in Columbus, Ohio until she died, . . . my grandfather had her committed, . . . and he didn't bother to sit me down and get my input, advice, or ask my take on the situation. Best I know, . . . she never harmed anyone, . . . and the "incarceration" may have been the reason, . . . I cannot tell.

I would have loved to have gotten to know her, . . . didn't happen.

Long and short of it all, . . . head science is not science, . . . it is looking at indicators, . . . making a best guess as to what/why/where/ and what if?, . . . and a lot of hoping it was right.

That added to the fact that no one has ever published an accepted paper on "This is how the brain functions", . . . yet we have litterally tens of thousands of Dr's (????) and other professionals (????) routinely adding this chemical or that chemical, . . . or a full cocktail OF chemicals to the brains of affected individuals, . . . with little if any followup.

This whole thing needs to be addressed, . . . long before we begin the clip, mag, assault rifle, EBR argument/discussions.

May God bless,
Dwight
 
PawPaw said:
I'd prefer not even to use his name. The sooner that he's consigned to the ash-heap of history, the better.
Click to expand...
I agree.

But I'll go one step beyond: I would like to propose that we immediately stop referring to the Sandy Hook incident as a "shooting." Shootings are carried out with firearms, so allowing the media and the politicians to stress the fact that the incident was a shooting allows them to focus on guns as the evil element. What the incident was, was a "massacre." And if you Google "school massacre" you will find references to the most deadly school massacre in U.S. history. I've mentioned it before. It was Bath Township, Michigan, in 1927. 45 people killed and another 58 people seriously injured. The weapons used were bombs.

"The media" are using words against us. I think we need to use words back at them, to redirect the discussion in more constructive directions. Don't let "them" define the terms. Don't refer to Sandy Hook as a "shooting." Call it what it was: a "massacre." And I don't mean just among ourselves. I mean, especially, when talking to the people who are fence-sitters on the gun control issue.
 
I prefer the term "atrocity"- an extremely wicked, cruel, brutal act.

I prefer to refer to the .... individual responsible as the Sandy Hook Nutter.

Folks with all the fancy letters after their name will insist he was "mentally ill". I say he was nuts.
 
Since many of these individuals fly under the radar, it's impossible to depend on mental health officials to keep them from purchasing or owning a weapon. Nobody knows the mental health issues of a stealthy individual better than family members. Mental Health Officials cannot rat on an individual unless they have threatened bodily injury to themselves or someone else. Many individuals are aware of these rules and keep their mouths shut while being treated if they are planning to do harm to others or themselves.

Parents, guardians, siblings, nephews/nieces, grandparents should have the right to advise the FBI that these individuals should not be allowed to purchase or own a weapon. If an individual is reported to the FBI by a sibling, that individuals name should only be removed by a relative or guardian willing to accept full responsibility for that individuals criminal actions involving firearms in the future. Can there be abuse of an individuals rights? Sure, you could have a relative that is anti-gun who out of spite fills out the FBi form. But if that is truly the case, you should have no problem getting another relative accept the responsibility of removing you from the list.

The other option is letting Mental Health Officials flag the FBI if they feel you are unstable enough to ever own a gun. Me, I'd rather leave it in the hands of my relatives. In retrospect, I honestly believe someone in one of the families of the recent shooters would have made sure that guns didn't get into their hands.
 
Last edited:
I want to thank Glenn for starting this thread. I find it very interesting. I have worked with people who have some form of mental illness (Heck, a lot of people say I do) or mental retardation.

I had one friend who was the same age as me, but with the mind of an eight year old. Some of the best times we had together were target shooting at red balloons. (Blue balloons bothered him and he would not shoot at them.)


I see so many people who want to quickly put a label on others who are different and then either hide them away (A lot of people would be surprised how many people in mental health facilities never get a visit from their relatives!), because out of sight, out of mind I guess.

NOW WHAT I FEAR: Most government agencies need to show an increase in work loads in order to justify increased funding. With the Veterans Administration (VA) trying to diagnose so many people with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), I worry about the anti-gunners finding a way to use this as a back door remedy to gun violence.

What about other agencies? Could this also happen with them, if it comes down to mandatory reporting?
 
Good post, Uncle Buck. I'd add the following, to the effect that the whole mental-illness thing is a very slippery slope...

Dr. Meyer started this thread as a discussion of the terminology of mental illness as applied to debates about gun ownership. However, I think the larger problem is not just a lack of knowledge about mental illness and the most up-to-date ways of talking about it, but a lack of thought about the ways illness and civil rights intersect.

Every time there's a rampage shooting (at least by a non-Muslim), it's commonly assumed that the perpetrator must have been mentally ill; The premise here is that only a mentally ill person would do such a thing. Sometimes the shooter has an actual diagnosis of mental illness, and a history of encounters with the mental health system -- sometimes not.

I'd argue that this assumption is unwarranted, and that it's only possible because mental illness is stigmatized in ways that other illnesses are not.

Most serious mental illnesses have an organic component; the fact that the most obvious symptoms are in the realm of behavior/emotion/thought doesn't, in itself, differentiate "mental" illness from illness in general. Example: someone who says "I'm tired all the time, and I have trouble remembering things" might be suffering from depression -- or from hypothyroidism, anemia, congestive heart failure, etc., etc.

I don't think any of us would see the latter conditions as reasons to deprive people of their rights, including their right to own guns, nor should we be so quick to accept mental illness as a reason to do so. Most mentally ill people aren't violent; taking away their 2nd amendment rights on the basis of a mere diagnosis means accepting a heck of a lot of "false positives" as the price of safety -- or rather, of the illusion of safety.

Remember "due process," that quaint little thing in the Constitution that's meant to ensure that the government can't deprive us of our rights without a darn good reason, as determined (usually) in a court of law?

Illness, whether mental or physical, ought not to be a reason to take away a person's Constitutional rights without some form of due process, i.e. a trip through the legal system.

There's a huge difference between a system which requires a legal hearing in order to determine that someone is mentally incompetent or dangerous, and restricts his rights on that basis, and a system in which a person can lose his rights based on a report from a single mental health professional, especially when potential liability issues mean that the latter is not a disinterested party. (And as to family members -- yikes!!)

And even in a legal setting, such a determination ought to be made on the basis of a person's overt behavior, not merely on the strength of a diagnosis or "professional opinion". The standard should be at least as high as that for civil commitment; if someone has not shown himself by his words or actions to be a danger to others, there's no justification for depriving him of his rights.

This, more or less, is the current standard at the Federal level for deciding if someone is a prohibited person by reason of his mental state; the main reason it works so badly is that few states comply with the reporting requirement, due either to their own privacy laws or to underfunding.

Let's work to fix that, at the state level, as a first step, rather than demonizing the mentally ill as a way of countering the other side's demonization of gun owners.
 
Last edited:
Phobia - that's an irrational fear to lay people. The DSM-IV specifics are:

DSM-IV criteria for 300.29 Specific phobias
1.Marked and persistent fear that is excessive or unreasonable, cued by the presence or anticipation of a specific object or situation (e.g. flying, heights, animals, receiving an injection, seeing blood)
2.Exposure to the phobic stimulus almost invariably provokes an immediate anxiety response, which may take the form of a situationally bound or situationally pre disposed panic attack. Note: in children, the anxiety may be expressed by crying, tantrums, freezing or clinging.
3.The person recognises that the fear is excessive and unreasonable. Note: in children this feature may be absent.
4.The phobic situation is avoided or is endured with intense anxiety or distress.
5.The avoidance, anxious anticipation, or distress in the feared situation(s) interferes significantly with a person’s routine, occupational (or academic) functioning, or social activities or relationships or there is a marked distress about having the phobia.
6.In individuals under the age of 18 years the duration is at least 6 months.
7.The anxiety panic attacks or phobic avoidance associated with the specific object or situation are not better accounted for by another mental disorder such as OCD (e.g. fear of dirt in someone with an obsession about contamination), post traumatic stress disorder (e.g. avoidance of school), social phobia, panic disorder with agoraphobia or agoraphobia without history of panic disorder).

- As you can see, it's not simply supporting gun control. Thus the usage may be common in the vernacular but not to the professions. Col. Cooper was just using it incorrectly, if he meant it to more that metaphorical.
 
"Persons who get any documented disability, aid or pension related to a mental health disorder or inability to maintain gainful employment due to a stress/social disorder(PTSD/ADD/clinical depression/suicide "

Any documented disability involving a mental health disorder?

I'm sorry, but you are completly wrong. First you need to go read the entire list of mental health diagnoses. There are more than 400 of them. Here's a link.

www.dr-bob.org/tips/dsm4n.html


You'd ban people with diagnoses such as:

302.71 Hypoactive (low) Sexual Desire Disorder

302.72 Female Sexual Arousal Disorder

302.72 Male Erectile Disorder

302.73 Female Orgasmic Disorder

302.74 Male Orgasmic Disorder

302.75 Premature Ejaculation

302.76 Dyspareunia (Not Due to a General Medical Condition)

302.79 Sexual Aversion Disorder

307.0 Stuttering


These are straight from the DSM.

You'd crack down on women who have painful sexual intercourse (dyspareunia) and and anyone who stutters? For goodness sakes, why???

Read the dang list and think.

John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top