Potter in Maclean's (1/24/2011, Vol. 124-2) remarks: A 2004 study by the World Health Organization found that 26 per cent of Americans had some form of mental disorder, including depression, anxiety, and substance abuse. The only country anywhere near this level was Ukraine, at 21 per cent. How should gun control and mental illness be related? Given the difficulties in assessing the latter, do we just have to admit that the interests of the rational gun owners outweighs potential additional dangers from such illness? Or is there a way, without the folly of gun banning, of minimising the threat?
1. Provide a link to this study. 2. Mental illness as far as diagnosis goes is a crapshoot. How many of these people have been diagnosed by a GP vs. a Psychiatrist? 3. Not all mentally ill people pose a safety threat. 4. Substance abuse at one point was a choice. That is not a mental illness in the same category as depression, or having schizopherenia. I'd be curious to know what the number of involuntary mentally ill people there are. The only way to "minimize" the threat is to have everyone forcibly examined to determine their mental health, and hand out consequences for these diagnoses, including preventing them from buying a gun. However, if we can't trust them with a gun, why are they not committed?
Answer the questions! You only came close with the last comment, but it was deliberate prance rather than useful comment. The thread isn't an excuse for the same old pathetic dogma. Its about practicalities and the problems associated with gun control
Your question is flawed due to a lack of analysis of the study you provided. Provide a better study, ask a better question, and you'll get a better answer.
You can of course dispute the WHO to your heart's content. However, that would be inanity and only be the result of the limitations of your dogma. If you can't answer the questions then fair enough, but try not to troll with deliberate drivel
Given that fellow isn't mature enough to answer the questions (which encompass all those interested in gun issues). Let's try again: How should gun control and mental illness be related? Given the difficulties in assessing the latter, do we just have to admit that the interests of the rational gun owners outweighs potential additional dangers from such illness? Or is there a way, without the folly of gun banning, of minimising the threat?
First, please provide a [free] link to this study so that we, as readers, can interpret its methodology and results. I also want to see how the term "mental disorder" is defined. Is everything from mild anxiety to schizophrenia with a catatonic state considered, or is the definition more narrow? Second, there are many reasons why the USA has a higher rate of "mental disorder?" The defintion of "mental disorder" may not be the same in all counties (e.g. the USA may have a more lax definition that includes mild anxiety, while other counties do not consider anxiety). In the USA, we spend more per capita than most other counties regarding healthcare, so you may have a larger amount of people seen and diagnosed by mental health professionals. Thus, there could very well be a sampling bias in the data collection process. I could keep going and going. They should be addressed as they are now. I do believe that the required federal background check looks for inpatient admissions for schizophrenia. As I said, although I am not 100% certain, I do believe that the federal background check accounts for those with inpatient schizophrenic admissions. Those with depression and anxiety have, for the most part, easily treatable conditions, and it would be a travesty of justice to deprive such people of the right to keep and bear arms.
That's not required. The information is background information only. Its not anything specific to the gun control debate. Thank you for the mature response (I was beginning to give up hope!). In terms of the less severe mental illnesses, do you think there should be a sliding severity of gun controls (e.g limitation of access to specific weaponry) or is it, simply put, too difficult to measure mental illnesses such that any such mechanisms would only be gun bans through the back door?
Perhaps this will help. http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publ...count-mental-disorders-in-america/index.shtml
That the quote, which didn't copy, said that 25% of the population has a diagnosable mental illness and 6% have a serious mental illness. Great. Now let's get down to what percentage have a mental illness that is potentially dangerous to others. If a psychiatrist diagnoses President Obama as suffering from marcissism should we take the nuclear codes away from him?
S/he won't - this is Reiver's modus operandi. A recent study of Reiver's methodology when responding to, or creating a thread - the "empirical evidence", if you will - reveals several things -- First - a reference to a study is mentioned, without a hyperlink to this study being posted, requiring the reader to cut and paste the aforementioned study into a search engine in order to find it. Secondly - the study invariably requires a subscription to view it, usually $19.95 or more, with $44.95 being the highest-priced subsrciption noted. Third - When challenged about this, s/he will invariably defend it as "best practice". The above "tactics" are based upon a randomly selected study of over 100 of Reiver's posts in the "Gun Control" and "Economics" sections of this forum. In every single instance observed, this was the approach used. Draw your own conclusions.
I haven't referenced a study. I've given background information to introduce a topic. Your inability to understand best practice isn't interesting. Indeed, you're merely trolling and therefore should leave the thread
Show me anywhere where "best practice" is defined as introducing an article, study, or other reference that others are unable to read without paying. Besides the pseudo-intellectual approach, another curious item noted in observing your methodology, is the near-constant dismissal of anyone who dares disagree with you - which, after reading several hundred of your posts, is almost comical in it's repetition. (Notice I said "almost" comical...) Don't disregard my post as "trolling", the "empirical evidence" proves otherwise! BTW - If you think I'm trolling, report me. I'll provide my "empirical evidence" regarding your methodology as rebuttal, and we'll let the chips fall where they may. Remember - The truth is an absolute defense.
More dreary trolling. So far I've only had one mature comment (via drj90210) to the basic question: How should gun control be adapted to take into account problems of mental illness?
I find it amusing how casually you dismiss valid empirical evidence of your methodology as "dreary trolling". As I stated previously, if you think I'm trolling, then report me. I'll provide my facts regarding your methodology to the administrator/moderators, and we'll go from there. I encourage, no, I implore you - take your best shot!
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...dyUyPxM9jvg_4D9nA&sig2=UDuyYLHuD7ju0Mvxc0ORDw I'd always read that the Irish had a very high prevalence of schizophrenia and other mental illnesses.
Nor do I intend to. Is there some reason you won't report me? I don't think it's out of any sort of personal respect you may have for me, so I suspect an ulterior motive - perhaps a fear of the consequences or repercussions? In other words - You know that my little investigation/research into your methodology is absolutely correct, so you won't report me becaue of the Pandora's Box you may inadvertantly open up. Which is undoubtedly the safe and correct action on your part. In the famous words of Clint Eastwood as Inspector Harry Callahan - "A man's got to know his limitations."
More importantly, what gun controls- given mental illness problems- do you support? Do you support a simple binary measure where only the more severe problems impact on the individual's ability to acquire guns?
Nothing CAN be done, I don't think, with regards to guns, so long as the second amendment stands as it is.
Speaking as a health care professional, working in mental health, I can tell you not all are diagnosed by a psychiatrist. However, the more mental health diagnosis there are, the more the pharmaceutical industry profits. Just thought I'd put that out there.
Something is already 'done'. The issue is how gun control can be tweaked. However, it certainly is a mind-field as we cannot understand mental illness as an easily measured binary concept
That's funny. I've always read that women had a high prevalence of schizophrenia, depression, vapors, and other mental illnesses. I might be the only one here examined by mental health professionals, three times, and found quite sane. As one put it, "(*)(*)(*)(*) peculiar but sane."
