If you had a chance to read my Analysis of the 23 Executive Actions that Obama said he was taking during a Press Conference earlier this week, or if you have been watching the News, you know some of the Presidents plan focuses on the mental health issue. I am worried that there will be too much “gray area” and these actions will be extremely overreaching – stomping on the 2nd Amendment rights of Americans who would never cause another harm unjustly.
Today a reader of this humble blog sent me some of his thoughts on the mental health actions the President is taking. Let us know what you think about this very complicated issue.
I read your article about Obama’s executive orders. I have heard many gun people talk about the mental health issue in gun control. The president seems to be focusing on this. I think we should be vigilant about this and not fooled by something that sounds like common sense.
Google “mental illnesses listed in DSM” (DSM = “diagnostics and statistics manual of psychiatric disorders” the handbook used by mental health professionals to diagnose mental illness.) I think you will be surprised by what you find. Such things as “male erectile disorder”,”nightmare disorder”,”premature ejaculation”, “caffeine-induced sleep disorder”, “night eating syndrome” and “primary insomnia” are listed as psychiatric disorders. If mental illness is used to exclude people from owning guns, then 90% of the population could possibly be excluded.
About seven percent of adults in the U.S. have been diagnosed with depression and anxiety. This alone could exclude a large segment of our population. I am not for arming the mentally unstable but mental illness is a catch-all phrase that puts a stigma on people who function normally, but may have a problem or condition that does not pose a threat to themselves or others but requires therapy or medication.
I think to exclude people who see doctors or take medications for minor things such as generalized anxiety or mild depression is a mistake and uses twisted statistics and overly broad definitions to disarm a few more people. The next argument they will use is that certain over the counter and/or prescribed medications cause diminished capacity and poor judgement therefore if you use these you cannot own a firearm.
Also, doctors, in the interest of keeping their licenses and avoiding lawsuits, will tend to be less forgiving and more aggressive in diagnosing and reporting those who might in the absence of the new executive orders would otherwise not be of concern and not be reported. Err on the side of caution has always been their motto. This is good when diagnosing cancer but when depriving a person of their liberties, a different and higher standard should be used.
I know most mass murderers in the U.S. had mental illness. Does that mean anything? Is it statistically significant? What percentage of people with mental illness commit violent crimes or mass murder specifically. Think of how many people in the U.S, take antidepressants or something to help stop smoking who have never committed a violent crime. I think this is just a device to begin excluding people from gun ownership. For that matter what percentage of law abiding gun owners commit violent crime? Also,what percentage of each gender, or each religion, or each ethnicity commits violent crimes? Should the government determine who has what rights based on these?
While I am ranting, as far as the “if it saves even one child” issue/war cry used by gun grabbers to justify more erosion of our rights; this also is a strategy designed to elicit sympathy and also sounds like common sense. This is the biggest lie used by these people. They (elitist government) don’t care about our children except that our children will provide future cannon fodder for their wars or wage slaves to enrich corporations that they own part of. If they really meant “if it saves even one child” then they would require crash helmets to be worn in cars, sprinkler systems installed in every home, and annual full body MRI’s for everybody. I mean, these things will save more than just one life. Better yet, if they care so much for children then ban abortion, as this will save more than one child’s life.
I think “mentally unstable” would be a better term to use when referring to those who shouldn’t own guns due to mental illness and a better definition to exclude people from gun ownership. Since six of the twenty three executive orders proposed for gun control have something to do with mental hearth either directly or indirectly it seems that “the mentally ill should not own guns argument” will be a large part of this latest gun grab attempt. It sounds good, but mental illness is based on a doctor’s or social worker’s opinion and interpretation of a manual that is based on opinion and statistics. In my opinion anyone who is crazy should not own a motor vehicle therefore no gun grabber or second amendment opponent should own a motor vehicle because one has to be crazy to think that by making more laws stating that criminals can’t have guns will keep criminals from owning guns and make people safe from these criminals. Again, I don’t think that the mentally unstable should be allowed to own guns, but we better be wary of the road on which we allow our government to travel. In depriving us of our liberties they will start from the outer edges and peel away layers of citizens and rights citing various references and studies until they finally reach the center which is where they see themselves to be.
~ A concerned citizen