The Language of Mental Illness in Gun Debates

[Metal god]

Most states, if not all, have laws against making terroristic threats or criminal threats. If someone has actually threatened violence in the presence of witnesses, whether against parents, schoolmates, or others, he's committed a crime, and the question of mental illness (and the terminology thereof ) is secondary. Charge them under those statutes and let the legal system sort out whether to jail them or commit them.

This may seem off topic at first but it gets there .

As true as this is , it is total bull pucky at the same time . I live in a big city very close to down town . There is a very big homeless population here and a good amount of them are unstable .

I often see the same people ( homeless/bum ) walking around my area . A few of them are way out there , talking to them selves , screaming at the top of there lungs on the corner . When I walk down the street . I must cross that street to avoid them . Why do I avoid them , because like I said they have been around for awhile and I've seen them act out in very aggressive ways . . Sometimes the cops come and hall them away and two weeks later there they are again on the same corner doing the same thing .

How can this happen ? they know how to play the system and know what to say and the TERMINOLOGY to use . We have become a society that must put a label on everything and if they don't fit the exact label then there's not alot anybody can do .

At some point it becomes obvious, even to a layman, that a certain person is dangerous.

I do agree that some of us if not most should not be sighting specific disorders or illnesses like we know what we are talking about but sometimes crazy is just crazy

 

[Evan Thomas]

I often see the same people ( homeless/bum ) walking around my area . A few of them are way out there , talking to them selves , screaming at the top of there lungs on the corner . When I walk down the street . I must cross that street to avoid them . Why do I avoid them , because like I said they have been around for awhile and I seen them act out in very aggressive ways . . Sometimes the cops come and hall them away and two weeks later there they are again on the same corner doing the same thing .

How can this happen ? they know how to play the system and know what to say and the TERMINOLOGY to use . We have become a society that must put a label on everything and if they don't fit the exact label then there's not alot anybody can do .

See my point above about adequate funding for the mental health system. Estimates of the percentage of homeless people who are mentally ill run from 15% to 45%.... the main reason they're homeless is that they have no resources of their own, are too disabled to work, and we as a society have decided they're not worth caring for. Others have mentioned the movement to "deinstitutionalize" the mentally ill: community mental health centers and residential facilities were supposed to pick up the slack, but were and are chronically underfunded. We get what we pay for -- or don't.

 

[Erno86]

I believe that 20% of the U.S. prison population is seriously mentally ill, along with 10% of the U.S. homeless population.

As for the suggestions made by the Maryland Task Force --- The Washington Post Metro, Thursday, Janurary 3, 2013: "Law enforcement officials in Maryland should be authorized to confiscate firearms from people who make a specific threat of 'serious violence' against someone," according to recommendations released Wednesday by a state government-appointed task force on guns and the mentally ill.

"If the person making the threats does not own a gun, that person should be blocked from buying one," the task force said. "The task force thinks every single one of these catagories {mental health and other professionals}, should be reporting. Some of these may be stronger than others in current law."

I am "cautiously optimistic" about the proposed effort "to keep dangerous individuals away from firearms"... quoting: Philip Watson, director of special projects at the Second Amendment Foundation, a gun rights group. "But we're concerned about improper administration of it...as well as provisions for due process," Watson said. There would need to be "safeguards against improper and overzealous application of the law, and stronger provisions for restoring gun ownership rights to those who have had firearms taken away, with the burden of proof on the state."

 

[zukiphile]

This thread is interesting in that it is to distinctly different conversations.

One problem of broadly inclusive diagnoses as preventing gun ownership is that it would prevent folks who need help from getting it. Unless a condition is really, really directly predictive - I'd be very cautious about stigmatizing folks.

We found in our PTSD/Cop work that officers who suffered would not seek help or see department psychologists as they felt it would hit their job evaluations - even if said to be confidential.

Indeed. The other problem with restricting the possession of firearms solely on the basis of a medical diagnosis is that a medical diagnosis is not an adjudication. A significant and permanent curtailment of an individual's rights without due process is problematic.

Also why would we want to keep a gun out of a felons hands or a person who due to his condition is a danger to himself or others, but at the same time allow them to drive a car?

In my state, if he is an adjudicated incompetent, he is not entitled to drive a car.

Throwing around a term like hoplophobia - implying a true anxiety disorder is fairly useless. So is using the term neurosis in modern parlance when trying to put down an antigun person.

Agreed.

So, let a layman ask the question: If we agree that "hoplophobe" is a pejorative, what is the preferred term for someone who is afraid of guns? Or are labels useless in this debate?

That hoplophobe is a pejorative is not a reason to withhold its use. The concept of an irrational fear of arms is itself negative. That hoplophobe is not currently a legitimate medical or psychological diagnosis is also not a reason to withhold its use. Many words that are not psychiatric argot use Greek constructions, and the use of a Greek construction is not itself a medical or psychiatric diagnostic claim.

As a matter of political discourse, describing an opponent's irrational fear as a phobia can be very useful. It has been used in the recent past to marginalize and stigmatize positions that are not the result of a psychiatric disorder.

It is likely more useful in calm and reflective fora to explain why a fear of arms is irrational, but not every consequential political conversation is calm and reflective. If a pejorative effectively conveys the lack of a reasonable basis for a position, it is not obviously unfair to use it.

 

[ClydeFrog]

schools, universities & training courses...

I was discussing these issues(mental health, firearms-weapons, school violence, etc) with my ex-girlfriend. She was on the faculty of a large university in TX and taught music in other places. She expressed concern with the administration & state regulations not really protecting the teachers or professors in some areas.
I'd sent her a media article & recorded video of a college student becoming violent/aggressive in class. This was about 2 years ago too(pre-Sandy Hook & VA-Tech).
These places need to screen or enforce rules better to prevent spree shootings or outbursts. Many of these colleges/schools don't want any complaints or lawsuits.

Clyde

 

[Come and take it.]

An fear of weapons is a symptom of a more complex condition.

As much as Psychiatrists want to pound away at the father of Psychiatry, he had tremendous insight. We live in a society where people are encouraged to remain in an immature nymph stage of development and never really achieve independant adulthood without somehow being firmly attached to the governments umbilical cord.

When you have sexually immature adults you have problems and symptoms such as a fear of weapons.

Also mental illness may only be part of the equation. Religion whether we like to discuss it or not may have played a part. It is known that Adam had a website devoted to devil worship.

http://usahitman.com/scinc/

Near the bottom of the article is where they bring their argument around to Adam Lanza and what some of his acquaintances knew about his online activities.

 

[scrubcedar]

Sorry, It's been a busy day, otherwise I would have chimed in sooner.

Vanya, as I recall the child we both talked about had actually assaulted his father, and was making the threats as they hauled him away for assault. The "threats" charge, even had there been one available, was secondary to the assault. ALL of these parents that were worried about their children that way had restrained their children in the midst of an assault on themselves or others at that point. I know because after I had heard a few stories I asked for a show of hands, they pretty much all went up. I've been very, very lucky with my daughter that way.
The reason this is important is that even when it became apparent that these people were a danger the system was simply not set up to stop it.

We can deal with theory all you want, but unless we address the reality that is occurring right now, not years in the past, nothing will change.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Sigh - the reason not to use hoplophobe is that if specifically envoke the term and try to make being an antigunner a mental illness (as was stated), you misuse the idea of specific phobias and anxiety disorders.

It is not that you shouldn't use it as it perjorative but it makes no technical sense.

Not to be against the rant but being against gun ownership is not a sufficient indicator of mental illness. If it makes you feel better to think that go ahead but frankly is it stupid.

Using old Freudian terminology is stupid. Freud explains everything and there are baloney Freudian analyses of how you, my gun loving buds, are nuts for liking guns.

Same with religion - I can easily find how believing in some religious tenets are seen to be psychopathological. Freud is based on the idea that anything you do is pathological. The rejection of that is what started other psychological paradigms.

So continue to use these as it is a way to feel better about yourself but it is useless in the real battle about the RKBA.

 

[Alabama Shooter]

Freud explains everything and there are baloney Freudian analyses of how you, my gun loving buds, are nuts for liking guns.

Something about my ding-ding is all I can recall at the moment. He did get there first mostly. When you plant new growth in virgin soil you can plant what you want.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Ha - you said ding-ding and then planting seed in virgins.

How Freudian?

That's why I teach the history of Freud and then why his psycho-sexual stuff is seen as incorrect. Thus, us using it - blah, where's the puke smilie.

However, his views on memory and selective attention were a worthwhile contribution but not part of what people usually talk about.

 

[Alabama Shooter]

Any valid work he did does not make into popular culture.

 

[Frank Ettin]

This whole thread reinforces that truth of the Chinese adage, "The first step toward wisdom is calling things by their right names." It never ceases to amaze me how strenuously some folks will resist learning and using correct terminology for technical matters apparently just because they want to do it their way.

And BTW, I'm convinced from my reading of Col. Cooper's writings and my conversations with him that he fully understood the hoplophobia was his invention and not an accurate, clinical term. He indeed used it metaphorically. It was simply his personal explanation for why the Brady Bunch and their Fellow Travelers were suffering from a mental aberration could not be shaken in their beliefs by rational argument or data. And I believe it was his way to avoid getting too caught up in "how do we convince the anti-gunners" discussions.

 

[zukiphile]

***

It is not that you shouldn't use it as it perjorative but it makes no technical sense.

***

So continue to use these as it is a way to feel better about yourself but it is useless in the real battle about the RKBA.

What if the term is not offered in a technical sense, not psychiatric argot, but a succinct description of an irrational fear?

I don't know whether the term is used to make users feel better about themselves, but the prior political use of a phobic description was certainly used to stigmatize and embarrass political adversaries. It appears to have been politically successful.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

As a metaphor, it might have some rhetorical usage.

My initial point was to reply to a post that when off on claiming true mental illness. That was not useful in debate.

Being convinced of a position in spite of evidence is more a function of normal cognitive decision making processes. A good read on stupid decision making processes is Kahnemans' Thinking, Fast and Slow.

So rhetorical use of 'phobe' - I DO NOT want to start a discussion of gay rights but the usage of homophobe to describe opponents of gay marriage is equivalent to hoplophobe. A strongly held belief with some emotional components about a political position isn't as of yet a mental illness.

There are theo'phobes' - people strongly disapproving of religion. Sloppy usage - well, I'm going to load the clips of my semi-automatic assault rifle, now rolleyes.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...There are theo'phobes' - people strongly disapproving of religion. Sloppy usage - well, I'm going to load the clips of my semi-automatic assault rifle, now

How about "nomenclature-phobes" -- people who strongly disapprove of using correct terminology?

 

[zukiphile]

So rhetorical use of 'phobe' - I DO NOT want to start a discussion of gay rights but the usage of homophobe to describe opponents of gay marriage is equivalent to hoplophobe. A strongly held belief with some emotional components about a political position isn't as of yet a mental illness.

I agree, and it has been my intent to steer clear of any of the substance of the same-sex marriage issue. I might take your point step further and note that it is poor rhetorical etiquette to attribute an opponent's position to a fear, real or imagined, where that opponent has provided to you a stated basis for his position. You would not do that to me and I would not do that to you.

However, when discourse turns away from fair discussion, as it so often does in political matters, there are a number of techniques that are distasteful but have proven utility.

 

[Alabama Shooter]

A strongly held belief with some emotional components about a political position isn't as of yet a mental illness.

Not yet. But society is getting there. Due to the stigma of mental illness in the US (and many other places) if you can successfully brand your enemies as mentally ill than you will cut off a level of support for them and osctracize them.

 

[Evan Thomas]

Not yet. But society is getting there. Due to the stigma of mental illness in the US (and many other places) if you can successfully brand your enemies as mentally ill than you will cut off a level of support for them and osctracize them.

True, and it's a pity that this is often what people mean by "debate."

And if you use a fancy-sounding term like "----phobe," it's harder for those to whom you're applying it to start using it self-referentially, with a kind of ironic pride (cf. "gun nut").

 

[zukiphile]

Not yet. But society is getting there.

Since I have put Glenn to the trouble of fleshing out his objection more than he may have preferred, let me suggest that his original objection very much runs counter to the trend of making differences in reasonably held beliefs a psychiatric matter.

We wrote about Soviet misuse of psychiatry on the same basis, and it is not a pleasant development that the abuse lives on in daytime talk shows and politics.

Due to the stigma of mental illness in the US (and many other places)...

At the risk of being flippant, I don't know how we would destigmatize being a nut. On the other hand, there should be room in an ordinary person's life for having a bad day and being sad without being offered a pill to fix it.

 

[Evan Thomas]

At the risk of being flippant, I don't know how we would destigmatize being a nut diabetic.

Fixed it for ya. I don't mean to be flippant either, or offensive, but a mental illness is basically an illness like many others -- often with a genetic component, often with a life history component... often treatable with meds and lifestyle changes.

Do you know any diabetics who've been arrested for public drunkenness because hypoglycemia can mimic intoxication? It's not that unusual. Lawyers... expenses... an arrest record... [sarcasm] All richly deserved, because they're sooo irresponsible. [/sarcasm]