Tweet
I have listened to the gun debates on all the network TV stations, radio, and the Internet. I have heard everything from doing away with guns to giving everybody a gun (the Archie Bunker solution). I read the second amendment of the constitution and realize the problems with it in modern times, yet want to hold our constitution sacred. There is a gaping flaw with background checks. Most of the shootings are perpetrated by young people, hence has not necessarily had time to establish criminal or mental health records. So, background checks are not the panacea we want, even if checks were carried out fully.
My personal expertise is in mental health. It appears to me that there are contributing factors to the rise in gun violence. One is economics, where there is a higher level of stress when there is an increase in personal disappointment, loss of jobs, loss of careers, loss of opportunities, especially among our youth. The second one is our general attitude and culture of solving all our problems with violence. From intercity streets to international affairs, let us use war and drones over diplomacy and engagement. People would rather just own a gun than to get to know and be friends with their neighbors. This brings me to a third cause, individualism over collectivism. That is likely why Americans feel a stronger need to own firearms than the rest of the world. A fourth cause is fear and insecurities, which is alarming for mental stability toward owning a firearm. I am sure others could come up with other factors, but I am sure I have most of them.
For another perspective, I see alarming attitudes on both sides of the debate. There is a lot of undiagnosed mental illness out there. I would rather see somebody owning a firearm that is maintaining his or her mental health than depending on the randomness of background checks. I believe in freedom and liberty, but in the same token, you do not give guns to people that are going to be a risk to public and self. From a psychological standpoint, anybody that owns or wishes to own a firearm should have a full psychological screening, at least every two years to be permitted, as conditions can change from social/economic factors affecting mental health. It they are mentally sane and stable, there should not be a problem with them owning what ever they want. Of course, they would have to be held personally and legally liable for the weapons they own. If we went to such a system, those who wanted weapons out of irrational insecurities would not qualify to own one. Those sane and stable enough to own a weapon probably would never want one, cutting down the number of guns owned in this country. The weapons would be mostly restricted to those who participate in sports or for rational need. The main need is taking the guns away from the mentally ill, which covers a large portion of those belonging to The Republican/Tea Party and the NRA.
6 Comments
You had a very reasoned diary going until that last paragraph which would have made Orwell do a spit-take.
You actually want millions of law abiding sane, as sane as anyone can be in the beast we call Amerika, gun owners to line up in front of the same people who are dosing a large portion of population with happy pills and beg them to stamp their not-nuts passes. I guess we could call it a jobs program for underused psych professionals and cover it under Obamacare.
I have inlaws with carry permits, that I know they are not sane. God knows how many more of those are out there. I am surprised there are not more shootings than there are. These people have no business carrying guns. This isn’t meds, it is testing. There are some very good personality test that do very good jobs in diagnosing mental illness, like the MMPI and the SWAP tests. Let’s separated the nuts from the guns, OK? This is not Orwell, but an opportunity for truly sane people the buy whatever they feel they need.
You have raised a very interesting issue. We know that most people agree that if you have a history of violent mental illness you might be the type to shoot people up. If you have a history of depression you might use your gun to kill yourself.
What about the people who have not been told by the court to spend time in a 72 hour hold? People who the family members are worried about and are concerned they are dangerous?
What if they have a conceal carry permit?
It really depends on the state, but in the state of Washington if you are caught intoxicated while carrying your weapon you have to forfeit it to a law enforcement officer. If you have ever had to forfeit your gun because you were carrying while drunk you lose your conceal carry permit.
So if you want to stop your inlaws who you deem a danger to themselves or others you have a process. You find out when they are out drinking and carrying and then tip off the police. “I’m at a bar and there is a belligerent drunk here and I can see he has a gun. He isn’t waving it yet, but I’m worried.”
The cops come talk to the guy make him give over his gun. Then you write the sheriff (or whom ever licenses guns in your state)and you tell them that you know that he was conceal carrying while drunk
Thank you for this thoughtful and well-considered post, inoilfieldhell.
I agree with much of what you say.
However, might I ask you to clarify this portion of the comment you made in reply to wayoutwest, “… an opportunity for truly sane people to buy whatever they feel they need”, ?
What do you mean by “need”, as you interpret that word?
Understand, I grew up at a time when many people owned guns primarily, indeed, virtually exclusively, for hunting. While I was not greatly attracted to hunting, having a very different interest in nature and wildlife (one, by the way which I find many avid hunters share, that being seeking to understand the habits, behaviors, and niches of various creatures as they fit into the larger mosaic whole .. of nature itself), I am not bothered by the guns and viewpoints of those who hunt, except, of course, for the trophy hunters. I learned to make every single shot of my single-shot, bolt-action .22 and my double-barrel twelve gauge … count … and cannot understand the need or necessity of a twenty-bullet clip, or even a ten-bullet clip, for that matter, if it is hunting we are speaking about.
Now, however, “need” seems to be attached to the notion of “protection”, to fears that others will prove dangerous and, certainly some people are dangerous to others, suffering, as you suggest from minor or even more serious mental distress, or even full-blown social pathology. Yet the fear I am speaking to and to which you have alluded, is a larger, unreasoning yet popular “philosophy” of “protecting the fortress” from the vast grasping undeserving hoards who wish to attack, to kill and to steal, those frightening, imagined figments of feverish social manipulations, created by cynical “philosophers” who sell fear wholesale, even as they mock civil society as a foolish “socialistic” veneer, for, they claim, “real human nature” is nasty, brutish, grasping, and insatiable. Now, while certain “astute” Wall Street bankers may well act and be permitted to act that way, in that “fashion” … most real people do not, not even those human beings whom some (front pagers at this site) suggest are too stupid to breathe …
So, if you might, could you elaborate, a wee bit, regarding what specific rational “need” you speak about, that you consider might be perceived by others?
Recommended to the rational and reasonable consideration of the entire FDL community, and to the larger society, as well, for such voices as inoilfiledhell’s, are much needed as rational perspective in the newly engaged “cultural war” and “debate” about guns … which President Barack Obama has recently “engaged” (perhaps, for his own “cover” and benefit, as it will detract from other, equally or even more serious concerns … some, not unrelated, in my opinion, of course).
DW
I spent my childhood in a small town where everybody had rifles and shotguns. They were displayed in a gun rack or over the fireplace. I had a Red Ryder BB gun, and also a Daisy pump BB gun. I never saw a pistol, nor do I remember any one ever getting shot. We left that town in 1954, and I haven’t been back since.
I decided to check my childhood “shangri La” on the computer, and although the population hasn’t changed much, it’s as crazy as every place else.
Once upon a time we had “sociologist’s”. Those are scientist’s who study people and give reasons for their bizarre behavior. They were replaced by policemen for “law and order”. Now we got less “law and order” than any time in my lifetime. Do we need more policemen, or more sociologist’s?
As you may know, Australia had a problem of repeated school shootings, then they banned Assault Weapons, including Possession of them. They had a buy-back. They had no more school shootings. It looks like this country is in line to keep having them.