Frizzman
US Veteran
With all the talk of keeping firearms out of the hands of "mentally ill" people, I wonder what qualifies as "mentally ill" to the degree it is a disqualification for possessing a firearm? Is it anyone who has any form of psychiatric treatment or counselling? A veteran diagnosed with PTSD? Anyone who has been prescribed any medication for a psychological reason? Anyone who has received a diagnosis defined by the DSM-IV as suffering from a major mental disorder or a Personality Disorder? Who will make this diagnosis? Any psychiatrist? Any physician? A podiatrist or opthamologist? A Clinical Social Worked(ACSW) or Clinical Psychologist or Licensed Professional Counselor or ASAP counselor?.
Having been a clinician in the psychiatric field for many years, I know that I could probably label anyone with a diagnosis. The diagnostic terms and criteria are created and represent no more than a consensus between clinicians and researchers on what constitutes a mental disorder. It changes. What was once a psychiatric disorder can become just a lifestyle. What diagnosis makes one dangerous? Even someone given a diagnosis of Sociopathic or Antisocial Personality Disorder may not be dangerous. A sociopath may just become a politician or salesman. There have been mass murderers who would not meet the formal criteria for diagnosis with a mental disorder.
How long is the "mentally ill" label appropriate? Can one recover from fully from any form of mental illness? If one is depressed and perhaps even suicidal due to loss of one's career or a loved one and seeks counselling and recieves antidepressanr medication, should that person be barred from owning a firearm for life? Will this keep people who need the help from seeking it?
I have advanced degrees in the field of psychology and I cannot answer all of these questions. The situation is complex. I do know there are plenty of people who are very sick and in need of treatment who never seek or recieve and treatment. I also remember when the Soviet government placed many, many people in "mental hospitals" because they were "insane". The criteria for the diagnosis was based on opposition to the government. They presumed that opposing the regime constituted all the evidence needed to consider a person insane.
So, the idea that somehow there can be laws, statutes, diagnoses and reports that can determine whether a person is or will be a threat if allowed to own a weapon is a difficult hypothesis. I agree that if there is somehow a mechanism that can keep arms out of the hands of people sick enough to use them to kill innocent people, it should be used. I am skeptical this will be a reality. The blame for attrocities such as the ones seen the last few years and before can easily be blamed on mental illness but is it actually the cause? Mass murder is not new and the answers are not easy. I am concerned that this may be another simple answer to a complex issue.
Having been a clinician in the psychiatric field for many years, I know that I could probably label anyone with a diagnosis. The diagnostic terms and criteria are created and represent no more than a consensus between clinicians and researchers on what constitutes a mental disorder. It changes. What was once a psychiatric disorder can become just a lifestyle. What diagnosis makes one dangerous? Even someone given a diagnosis of Sociopathic or Antisocial Personality Disorder may not be dangerous. A sociopath may just become a politician or salesman. There have been mass murderers who would not meet the formal criteria for diagnosis with a mental disorder.
How long is the "mentally ill" label appropriate? Can one recover from fully from any form of mental illness? If one is depressed and perhaps even suicidal due to loss of one's career or a loved one and seeks counselling and recieves antidepressanr medication, should that person be barred from owning a firearm for life? Will this keep people who need the help from seeking it?
I have advanced degrees in the field of psychology and I cannot answer all of these questions. The situation is complex. I do know there are plenty of people who are very sick and in need of treatment who never seek or recieve and treatment. I also remember when the Soviet government placed many, many people in "mental hospitals" because they were "insane". The criteria for the diagnosis was based on opposition to the government. They presumed that opposing the regime constituted all the evidence needed to consider a person insane.
So, the idea that somehow there can be laws, statutes, diagnoses and reports that can determine whether a person is or will be a threat if allowed to own a weapon is a difficult hypothesis. I agree that if there is somehow a mechanism that can keep arms out of the hands of people sick enough to use them to kill innocent people, it should be used. I am skeptical this will be a reality. The blame for attrocities such as the ones seen the last few years and before can easily be blamed on mental illness but is it actually the cause? Mass murder is not new and the answers are not easy. I am concerned that this may be another simple answer to a complex issue.
). Your assessment is absolutely spot on. My take is that I'm OK the rest of you are not.
