8 ms·

Wait, let me guess... As such, they are not allowed to buy weapons, right? How convenient...

by chris_mahan 13y ago

bjhoops1 13y ago
Please tell me you don't actually want these folks armed.
- WayneDB 13y ago
  Who? Anti-authoritarians or the mentally ill folks?
  - VLM 13y ago
    The purpose of the article was to claim that the opinion of the only people legally allowed to make diagnoses is that the venn diagram shows the anti-authoritarians completely enclosed as a subset of the mentally ill folks. The author's personal experience was being diagnosed with "issues with authority" because he didn't kiss up to his crazy boss. I don't see any conflict between not kissing up to his boss and owning firearms, so sure, let him go deer hunting on vacation if he's got no other, real, issues.
- chris_mahan 13y ago
  Wait, weren't the people who fought to make America independent upset with the King's Authority? Would you not say, today, that they were anti-authorianists? Would you not say that an oppressive government would use such a "medical condition" to confiscate guns from people who disagreed with it? Think hard about this, and ask yourself what you would have done in 1774: sided with the Revolutionaries, or sided with the Royalists.
  - jbooth 13y ago
    Take it easy on the rhetoric. No, those founding fathers were not anti-authorianists to the degree that people would call a pathology. The continental congress did not descend into a bunch of bickering every time someone asked someone else to do something. They were mostly, from all reports, pretty well-adjusted and got along with each other civilly even with major disagreements on how to do things.
    - ctdonath 13y ago
      But their political opponents would not hesitate to have them declared pathological, and so proceed to establish "legal" grounds to disarm & incarcerate (ahem, involuntary commitment to treatment). Many authoritarian governments have done so to great effect and great harm; ours is heading that way.
      - jbooth 13y ago
        Sort of a non-sequitur here: Someone once called the FOUNDING FATHERS (freedom!) crazy, therefore we shouldn't restrict documented crazy people from buying guns? There is probably a lesson in that disorders that make you inconvenient for the system are more likely to be recognized/categories than those that make you a sheep. Fine. I don't think you can generalize from that to "documented mentally ill should be able to buy guns because what if it's actually a conspiracy vs them and not just voices in their head? then they can use their gun to stop the conspiracy.". That seems like pretty awesomely bad policy to me.
        ctdonath 13y ago
        The problem is defining "crazy" such that the sane are not labeled as such pursuant to ulterior motives.
    - chris_mahan 13y ago
      Except for the shooting and killing of the King's Soldiers at Bunker Hill outside Boston.
      - jbooth 13y ago
        Yes, there was in fact a war during the revolutionary war, but very few if any of the founding fathers were at Bunker Hill, and you'd be hard-pressed to prove the overwhelming majority of soldiers were doing it out of pathological anti-authority problems. They had plenty of non-pathological, reasonable complaints. Sometimes things happen within the normal human spectrum. You're conflating behavior with a category in the DSM with political action by generally sane individuals. As far as what little relation this has to the gun debate: Background checks for mental illness are probably a reasonable idea, and I'm pro gun rights. I was against the recent Toomey-Manchin legislation until I heard that: - It makes creating a federal database of gun owners explicitly illegal - It makes transporting unloaded guns across state lines explicitly legal (this is apparently currently illegal a lot of the time) - It's only applying the same standards for licensed gun dealers to gun shows and internet sales, while explicitly making internet sales legal (gray area before) It's actually a totally reasonable bill that does a lot of what gun rights people have been asking for. But what's the upside for the NRA in a reasonable bill, versus vilifying it and raising a bunch of money to STOP THE GUN GRABBING BILL? That is why we can't have nice things.
  - cinquemb 13y ago
    As far as I'm aware most colonists at the time didn't participate, but the complacency is always desired by people in power. And a lot of slaves and native americans sided with the Royalists and decent portion gained freedom after the war in GB (though many were returned to their masters after the fact), so I think whose side one would take is more complicated than being mere anti-authoritarians. This crashcourse video points out some of these things: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EiSymRrKI4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EiSymRrKI4] Despite it all, I would say that an oppressive government could use "medical condition" to confiscate weapons, but whether the populous is armed or not has little to do with the oppressive nature upon the governed in any country.
    - ucee054 13y ago
      Please, god, it's "populace", not "populous"
      - chris_mahan 13y ago
        ...a populace can be populous; a pompous people perhaps?
  - dkuntz2 13y ago
    That's a poor question. The Revolutionaries were really just opportunists. They could have received the representation they wanted in parliament, however they saw the chance to start their own government, a new one, built by them, however they wanted. I'm not saying it was a bad thing that they decided to focus their efforts on starting a new government instead of working with their current one, but they didn't have to. The Declaration of Independence was written to discredit parliament and the king (who, at this time, didn't have power anymore, it was already with the House of Commons), and to drum up support with other powers who didn't really like England (specifically France). They could have worked out a deal with the House of Commons giving them a representative spot, but their declaration explicitly decided against it. Take a history class. You might get some context to the events you cite.
    - bjhoops1 13y ago
      But what could we base 21st century policy on, if not the divinely inspired actions of 18th century European colonists?
      - dkuntz2 13y ago
        19th century proletariats?
    - chris_mahan 13y ago
      Royalist! Traitor! You defy the very premise of the United States of America's existence: The God-given right to live free from the oppression of a Draconian Regime! (I kid, I kid, I like to hear people's opinions) But it's got to strike you as interesting that I have taken many history classes, along with reading many historical books, and still evidently lack the profound knowledge of the 1770s that you have. I wonder whether my classes and books were somehow deficient, perhaps as they were written and taught by the victors, the same sort of people who benefited from these Colonial Opportunists, and may thus be unwilling to besmirch their hallowed reputations...
      - dkuntz2 13y ago
- theorique 13y ago
  What do you mean "these folks"? It could happen to any of us lawful gun owners with criteria this broad.
- betterunix 13y ago
  When the authorities' agents look like this, you better hope the people who question authority are armed: http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/swat-team-10a.jpg http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/swat-team-10a.jpg http://inmenlo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/SWAT-team-competition.jpg http://inmenlo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/SWAT-team-comp...
- bjhoops1 13y ago
  EDIT: to clarify, by "these folks" I mean people who are both mentally ill and anti-authoritarian.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    What sort of mental illness are we talking about? Do they think that the queen is a lizard and the government is putting chemicals in contrails? I really don't care if they have a gun. Lizard and chemtrail people are clearly loony, but they seem perfectly harmless. Instead are they a psychopath fascinated with violence? In that case yeah, I am not comfortable with them having a gun... but if we know who they are then why the hell are they not institutionalized already, rendering the issue moot?
  - mc-lovin 13y ago
    The whole point of the article was to question the validity of the diagnosis of mental illness, which you completely ignore when you blithely add the disclaimer that "these folks" refers only to people who are mentally ill.
koenigdavidmj 13y ago
Only if they've been involuntarily institutionalised, or you live in a state that does not respect the Second Amendment rights of its citizens (California or New York being the two relevant examples here).
6cxs2hd6 13y ago
This is why we can't have nice firearms. Seriously: I fully support background checks -- extending what we already have, to cover all sales. I also think that if motor vehicles require registration, insurance, and license to operate, then firearms sure as heck should, too. Even so, if I'm being intellectually honest, I also have a twinge of doubt when it comes to "mental health" grounds, and I have some concern about a Minority Report pre-cog sort of exercise. This will probably just get me down-votes from both sides of the debate, but, there you have it.
- chris_mahan 13y ago
  I agree with you. I see the main problem as this: Many people want to keep firearms to keep the power of the government in check, and the government wants to write the rules on who can keep arms. This causes a friction. Either the people give up the right to bear arms and trust the government fully, or the government should not be allowed to make rules on who can keep arms. Anything short of that will continue to cause the friction. I'm of the opinion that the founders of the United States did not envision a government that people should fully trust, and that mistrust in the government's actions and motives by the populace would actually be healthy for the government. I'm further of the opinion that the founders did not envision a medical profession that could, with a diagnosis and the stroke of a pen, be able to essentially enforce such government full trust, by removing a person's constitutional right to own a firearm, and that without a crime having been committed, and the person not having been convicted of such a crime in a court of law. If you ask me, that's exactly what the movie Minority Report foretold: "We think you are going to commit a crime, and therefore we will pre-emptively curtail your freedom." Is this the America the Founding Fathers envisioned when they signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776?
  - mrchucklepants 13y ago
    Your second paragraph is a perfect explanation of the conflict at the core of the gun control debate. Well said.
    - chris_mahan 13y ago
Jtsummers 13y ago
Out of curiosity, why bring that into this discussion? The linked article says nothing about firearms.
- ctdonath 13y ago
  Because it absolutely is a related issue these days. New York and California are, as a result of very recent legislation, actively seeking out and disarming those labeled "mentally ill". The USA's federal leadership is pressing hard to do the same. Genuine at-risk cases aside, we're facing a situation where sensible liberty-defending anti-authoritarian citizens may very well be involuntarily labeled as ODD and disarmed & silenced, much as many communist countries have done at length to great effect.
  - Jtsummers 13y ago
    I get the connection, I just wondered if OP had something other than snark for this since it doesn't follow directly from the link. Also, it isn't just communist countries it's authoritarian regimes generally. Hyperbolic comparisons and innuendos don't help the conversation, they just push potential participants away. As to the idea of mass disarmament of "sensible liberty-definding anti-authoritorian citizens", I doubt that any organization within the government has the manpower to assemble an army of shrinks to diagnose the whole population. And then another literal army to quell the ensuing rebellion - considering that much of the current armed forces would be deserting. They may make it more difficult to purchase a firearm, but the existing ones aren't going anywhere for a while. Especially since Congress can barely cooperate enough to agree that the sky is blue.
  - alan_cx 13y ago
    "New York and California are, as a result of very recent legislation, actively seeking out and disarming those labeled "mentally ill". " What? On top of everything else the mentally ill get to own guns? That is honestly shocking to me.
    - ctdonath 13y ago
      "Mentally ill" is a very broad issue, both in definition and temporal application. Someone may be fine when licensed, then acquire the label later - should police go so far as an armed raid on the home to locate & confiscate any guns? What (as the lead article notes) constitutes serious enough "illness" to warrant active identification and confiscation? The definition of "mentally ill" is being expanded, covering what prior was considered normal; is it acceptable for the government to reverse licensing when the licensee has not changed in any objective way? Many "mental illnesses" are temporary, resulting from either transient biological phenomena or one-time social stress; the issue having passed and the patient returned to normal, the label remains - when does a "mental illness" label get eradicated? If treatment restores someone to normalcy with ongoing medical maintenance ("fine so long as he's on his pills"), is the patient indefinitely denied what is otherwise a right of "normal" people? Then there's association therewith. Is a mentally stable person prohibited weapons just because s/he lives with someone labeled "mentally ill", despite suitable securing of the arms? Finally, who gets to define "mentally ill"? Per the lead article, just being "anti-authoritarian" (in, say, a George Washington sense) could get one involuntarily labeled as such. Dictatorships are fond of so labeling, and ultimately eliminating, political opposition by application of the label. We can all agree that the just-plain-nuts should be disallowed guns, and all firearms licensing processes include some level of certification of sanity. Problem is, the anti-gun movement is leveraging that restriction to expand prohibition in ways which are honestly shocking to me.
cinquemb 13y ago
It's all ok in the end… There's a 3d printer and a "liberator" waiting for you! And if you call now, I'll throw in a Feinstein mag! (Shipping Not Included)
betterunix 13y ago
Most psychiatric diagnoses will not prevent you from buying a gun. You have to either make an insanity plea (that is actually accepted by a court) or be involuntarily committed for the restriction to kick in, at least as I understand things. Of course, the gun control crowd would probably want any psychiatric disorder to be grounds for preventing someone from buying a gun, if only as a way to ban large numbers of people from firearm ownership.

Wait, let me guess... As such, they are not allowed to buy weapons, right? How convenient...

bjhoops1 13y ago

Please tell me you don't actually want these folks armed.

WayneDB 13y ago
Who? Anti-authoritarians or the mentally ill folks?
- VLM 13y ago
  The purpose of the article was to claim that the opinion of the only people legally allowed to make diagnoses is that the venn diagram shows the anti-authoritarians completely enclosed as a subset of the mentally ill folks. The author's personal experience was being diagnosed with "issues with authority" because he didn't kiss up to his crazy boss. I don't see any conflict between not kissing up to his boss and owning firearms, so sure, let him go deer hunting on vacation if he's got no other, real, issues.
chris_mahan 13y ago
Wait, weren't the people who fought to make America independent upset with the King's Authority? Would you not say, today, that they were anti-authorianists? Would you not say that an oppressive government would use such a "medical condition" to confiscate guns from people who disagreed with it? Think hard about this, and ask yourself what you would have done in 1774: sided with the Revolutionaries, or sided with the Royalists.
- jbooth 13y ago
  Take it easy on the rhetoric. No, those founding fathers were not anti-authorianists to the degree that people would call a pathology. The continental congress did not descend into a bunch of bickering every time someone asked someone else to do something. They were mostly, from all reports, pretty well-adjusted and got along with each other civilly even with major disagreements on how to do things.
  - ctdonath 13y ago
    But their political opponents would not hesitate to have them declared pathological, and so proceed to establish "legal" grounds to disarm & incarcerate (ahem, involuntary commitment to treatment). Many authoritarian governments have done so to great effect and great harm; ours is heading that way.
    - jbooth 13y ago
      Sort of a non-sequitur here: Someone once called the FOUNDING FATHERS (freedom!) crazy, therefore we shouldn't restrict documented crazy people from buying guns? There is probably a lesson in that disorders that make you inconvenient for the system are more likely to be recognized/categories than those that make you a sheep. Fine. I don't think you can generalize from that to "documented mentally ill should be able to buy guns because what if it's actually a conspiracy vs them and not just voices in their head? then they can use their gun to stop the conspiracy.". That seems like pretty awesomely bad policy to me.
      - ctdonath 13y ago
        The problem is defining "crazy" such that the sane are not labeled as such pursuant to ulterior motives.
  - chris_mahan 13y ago
    Except for the shooting and killing of the King's Soldiers at Bunker Hill outside Boston.
    - jbooth 13y ago
      Yes, there was in fact a war during the revolutionary war, but very few if any of the founding fathers were at Bunker Hill, and you'd be hard-pressed to prove the overwhelming majority of soldiers were doing it out of pathological anti-authority problems. They had plenty of non-pathological, reasonable complaints. Sometimes things happen within the normal human spectrum. You're conflating behavior with a category in the DSM with political action by generally sane individuals. As far as what little relation this has to the gun debate: Background checks for mental illness are probably a reasonable idea, and I'm pro gun rights. I was against the recent Toomey-Manchin legislation until I heard that: - It makes creating a federal database of gun owners explicitly illegal - It makes transporting unloaded guns across state lines explicitly legal (this is apparently currently illegal a lot of the time) - It's only applying the same standards for licensed gun dealers to gun shows and internet sales, while explicitly making internet sales legal (gray area before) It's actually a totally reasonable bill that does a lot of what gun rights people have been asking for. But what's the upside for the NRA in a reasonable bill, versus vilifying it and raising a bunch of money to STOP THE GUN GRABBING BILL? That is why we can't have nice things.
- cinquemb 13y ago
  As far as I'm aware most colonists at the time didn't participate, but the complacency is always desired by people in power. And a lot of slaves and native americans sided with the Royalists and decent portion gained freedom after the war in GB (though many were returned to their masters after the fact), so I think whose side one would take is more complicated than being mere anti-authoritarians. This crashcourse video points out some of these things: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EiSymRrKI4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EiSymRrKI4] Despite it all, I would say that an oppressive government could use "medical condition" to confiscate weapons, but whether the populous is armed or not has little to do with the oppressive nature upon the governed in any country.
  - ucee054 13y ago
    Please, god, it's "populace", not "populous"
    - chris_mahan 13y ago
      ...a populace can be populous; a pompous people perhaps?
- dkuntz2 13y ago
  That's a poor question. The Revolutionaries were really just opportunists. They could have received the representation they wanted in parliament, however they saw the chance to start their own government, a new one, built by them, however they wanted. I'm not saying it was a bad thing that they decided to focus their efforts on starting a new government instead of working with their current one, but they didn't have to. The Declaration of Independence was written to discredit parliament and the king (who, at this time, didn't have power anymore, it was already with the House of Commons), and to drum up support with other powers who didn't really like England (specifically France). They could have worked out a deal with the House of Commons giving them a representative spot, but their declaration explicitly decided against it. Take a history class. You might get some context to the events you cite.
  - bjhoops1 13y ago
    But what could we base 21st century policy on, if not the divinely inspired actions of 18th century European colonists?
    - dkuntz2 13y ago
      19th century proletariats?
  - chris_mahan 13y ago
    Royalist! Traitor! You defy the very premise of the United States of America's existence: The God-given right to live free from the oppression of a Draconian Regime! (I kid, I kid, I like to hear people's opinions) But it's got to strike you as interesting that I have taken many history classes, along with reading many historical books, and still evidently lack the profound knowledge of the 1770s that you have. I wonder whether my classes and books were somehow deficient, perhaps as they were written and taught by the victors, the same sort of people who benefited from these Colonial Opportunists, and may thus be unwilling to besmirch their hallowed reputations...
    - dkuntz2 13y ago
theorique 13y ago
What do you mean "these folks"? It could happen to any of us lawful gun owners with criteria this broad.
betterunix 13y ago
When the authorities' agents look like this, you better hope the people who question authority are armed: http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/swat-team-10a.jpg http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/swat-team-10a.jpg http://inmenlo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/SWAT-team-competition.jpg http://inmenlo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/SWAT-team-comp...
bjhoops1 13y ago
EDIT: to clarify, by "these folks" I mean people who are both mentally ill and anti-authoritarian.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  What sort of mental illness are we talking about? Do they think that the queen is a lizard and the government is putting chemicals in contrails? I really don't care if they have a gun. Lizard and chemtrail people are clearly loony, but they seem perfectly harmless. Instead are they a psychopath fascinated with violence? In that case yeah, I am not comfortable with them having a gun... but if we know who they are then why the hell are they not institutionalized already, rendering the issue moot?
- mc-lovin 13y ago
  The whole point of the article was to question the validity of the diagnosis of mental illness, which you completely ignore when you blithely add the disclaimer that "these folks" refers only to people who are mentally ill.

koenigdavidmj 13y ago

Only if they've been involuntarily institutionalised, or you live in a state that does not respect the Second Amendment rights of its citizens (California or New York being the two relevant examples here).

6cxs2hd6 13y ago

This is why we can't have nice firearms. Seriously: I fully support background checks -- extending what we already have, to cover all sales. I also think that if motor vehicles require registration, insurance, and license to operate, then firearms sure as heck should, too. Even so, if I'm being intellectually honest, I also have a twinge of doubt when it comes to "mental health" grounds, and I have some concern about a Minority Report pre-cog sort of exercise. This will probably just get me down-votes from both sides of the debate, but, there you have it.

chris_mahan 13y ago
I agree with you. I see the main problem as this: Many people want to keep firearms to keep the power of the government in check, and the government wants to write the rules on who can keep arms. This causes a friction. Either the people give up the right to bear arms and trust the government fully, or the government should not be allowed to make rules on who can keep arms. Anything short of that will continue to cause the friction. I'm of the opinion that the founders of the United States did not envision a government that people should fully trust, and that mistrust in the government's actions and motives by the populace would actually be healthy for the government. I'm further of the opinion that the founders did not envision a medical profession that could, with a diagnosis and the stroke of a pen, be able to essentially enforce such government full trust, by removing a person's constitutional right to own a firearm, and that without a crime having been committed, and the person not having been convicted of such a crime in a court of law. If you ask me, that's exactly what the movie Minority Report foretold: "We think you are going to commit a crime, and therefore we will pre-emptively curtail your freedom." Is this the America the Founding Fathers envisioned when they signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776?
- mrchucklepants 13y ago
  Your second paragraph is a perfect explanation of the conflict at the core of the gun control debate. Well said.
  - chris_mahan 13y ago

Jtsummers 13y ago

Out of curiosity, why bring that into this discussion? The linked article says nothing about firearms.

ctdonath 13y ago
Because it absolutely is a related issue these days. New York and California are, as a result of very recent legislation, actively seeking out and disarming those labeled "mentally ill". The USA's federal leadership is pressing hard to do the same. Genuine at-risk cases aside, we're facing a situation where sensible liberty-defending anti-authoritarian citizens may very well be involuntarily labeled as ODD and disarmed & silenced, much as many communist countries have done at length to great effect.
- Jtsummers 13y ago
  I get the connection, I just wondered if OP had something other than snark for this since it doesn't follow directly from the link. Also, it isn't just communist countries it's authoritarian regimes generally. Hyperbolic comparisons and innuendos don't help the conversation, they just push potential participants away. As to the idea of mass disarmament of "sensible liberty-definding anti-authoritorian citizens", I doubt that any organization within the government has the manpower to assemble an army of shrinks to diagnose the whole population. And then another literal army to quell the ensuing rebellion - considering that much of the current armed forces would be deserting. They may make it more difficult to purchase a firearm, but the existing ones aren't going anywhere for a while. Especially since Congress can barely cooperate enough to agree that the sky is blue.
- alan_cx 13y ago
  "New York and California are, as a result of very recent legislation, actively seeking out and disarming those labeled "mentally ill". " What? On top of everything else the mentally ill get to own guns? That is honestly shocking to me.
  - ctdonath 13y ago
    "Mentally ill" is a very broad issue, both in definition and temporal application. Someone may be fine when licensed, then acquire the label later - should police go so far as an armed raid on the home to locate & confiscate any guns? What (as the lead article notes) constitutes serious enough "illness" to warrant active identification and confiscation? The definition of "mentally ill" is being expanded, covering what prior was considered normal; is it acceptable for the government to reverse licensing when the licensee has not changed in any objective way? Many "mental illnesses" are temporary, resulting from either transient biological phenomena or one-time social stress; the issue having passed and the patient returned to normal, the label remains - when does a "mental illness" label get eradicated? If treatment restores someone to normalcy with ongoing medical maintenance ("fine so long as he's on his pills"), is the patient indefinitely denied what is otherwise a right of "normal" people? Then there's association therewith. Is a mentally stable person prohibited weapons just because s/he lives with someone labeled "mentally ill", despite suitable securing of the arms? Finally, who gets to define "mentally ill"? Per the lead article, just being "anti-authoritarian" (in, say, a George Washington sense) could get one involuntarily labeled as such. Dictatorships are fond of so labeling, and ultimately eliminating, political opposition by application of the label. We can all agree that the just-plain-nuts should be disallowed guns, and all firearms licensing processes include some level of certification of sanity. Problem is, the anti-gun movement is leveraging that restriction to expand prohibition in ways which are honestly shocking to me.

cinquemb 13y ago

It's all ok in the end… There's a 3d printer and a "liberator" waiting for you! And if you call now, I'll throw in a Feinstein mag! (Shipping Not Included)

betterunix 13y ago

Most psychiatric diagnoses will not prevent you from buying a gun. You have to either make an insanity plea (that is actually accepted by a court) or be involuntarily committed for the restriction to kick in, at least as I understand things. Of course, the gun control crowd would probably want any psychiatric disorder to be grounds for preventing someone from buying a gun, if only as a way to ban large numbers of people from firearm ownership.