Search Box

Monday, June 20, 2016

Who exactly are the "mentally ill" whom Obama wants to keep guns from?

President Obama, as always, tried to turn the latest mass killing to his political advantage, following up last weekend's Orlando massacre with yet another call for more gun control.

Obama's adamant refusal to associate Islam with terrorist attacks has long since passed the point of ludicrousness. Starting with his characterization of Major Hasan's killing of 14 at Ft. Hood as ordinary "workplace violence," Obama has consistently turned a blind eye to the obvious jihad-like nature of the attacks.

Obama also said this past week that it was ridiculous that a man like Mateen, who had been investigated (and cleared) by the FBI, would have ready access to guns. What Obama didn't say was that organizations like the FBI are reluctant to go after Muslims precisely because of the politically correct atmosphere promoted by his own administration.

Every operative at a federal agency knows that it's worth his career if he shows any "bias" or "prejudice" or does any "racial profiling" against a member of an Obama-favored group.

Obama did say this week, as he has said several times in the past, that guns have to be "kept out of the wrong hands." But if he's not referring to those bent on jihad, then which exactly are the "wrong hands" he is referring to?

Obama mentioned that mental health records should be cross checked when gun purchases are made. But very few young people (most mass shooters are young) actually have publicly available mental health records.

And who exactly is Obama referring, anyway, when he talks of the "mentally ill?" Exactly which people, with which syndromes, is he talking about?

People who suffer from depression? Someone who is suicidal might possibly be thinking in terms of taking somebody with them. Should Robin Williams, Isaac Asimov, Charles Dickens, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Abraham Lincoln, and John D. Rockefeller all have been denied a gun for that reason?

People who are bipolar? Should Dick Cavett, Carrie Fisher, Phil Ochs, Lou Reed, Ted Turner be denied permits? Should Edgar Allan Poe, Vincent Van Gogh, and Virginia Woolf have been denied them?

Schizophrenics? Even when they're medicated?

Most Americans believe that any jihadist who thinks he is going to receive 72 virgins in Paradise is delusional, i.e., psychotic. But of course, going by that definition, Christians who believe in Heaven and Hell are similarly misled.

Or how about people with narcissistic personality disorder? That includes an awful lot of people too: just think in terms of everyone you know who thinks he's better than he is at various things. Or everybody who seems inclined to take more credit and less blame than he deserves. That would seem to include a high percentage of those in Congress.

Sociopaths? At first glance, this would probably be the first group you'd want to prevent from having access to firearms. But would Barack Obama want to prevent Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Wendy Davis, Carly Fiorina, Joe Arpaio, and even himself from having guns?

How about the gays? Homosexuality was classified as a mental illness by the DSM until quite recently. And male homosexuals punch way above their weight when it comes to serial killing. So should they be excluded from the gun-carrying fraternity?

Or how about transgenders, who put the "T" in LGBT? The DSM does still list them as having "gender dysphoria," an identifiable syndrome. So….should Caitlyn Jenner and Chaz Bono not be allowed the right to defend themselves? You'd think that of all people, they need protection most.

Neurotics? (That includes most of us.)

Or how about people with ADD or ADHD? That's an awfully big segment of the population, too. But lapses in concentration can lead to lapses in judgment.

People with OCD? Would Obama have prevented Charles Darwin, Howard Hughes, Michelangelo, and Ludwig Van Beethoven from owning weapons? Doubtful. Would he prevent Donald Trump from owning one? (Probably.) But what about Howard Stern, Harrison Ford, Martin Scorsese, and Leo DiCaprio?

People with Aspergers? Would Obama not allow Al Gore to have a gun? Would he have prevented Sir Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, George Orwell, and Thomas Edison from obtaining permits?

Or how about war heroes with PTSD? Certainly if there's one category of people who've earned the right to defend themselves, it's those who've defended the country. But, some of them have been known to turn violent.

The "mentally ill" is an awfully vague category that covers a whole lot of people.

On top of that, does Obama have any idea how few young people have actually visited a psychiatrist? Is he aware that the vast majority of people with these various syndromes go undiagnosed? And does he realize that if they have visited a psychiatrist, that doctor is unlikely to have given his records to law enforcement, because of privacy concerns?

Is Obama aware that the vast majority of people with these various syndromes never turn violent? Wouldn't this type of program, if aimed at, say, an entire ethnic group, be deemed "discrimination?"

Think in terms of how black people commit a vastly disproportionate share of handgun violence, yet at the same time the vast majority of black people are law-abiding. Wouldn't keeping guns from blacks be viewed as discriminatory? The very idea seems unthinkable; yet wouldn't keeping guns from "the mentally ill" be equally discriminatory?

The concept of keeping guns from "the mentally ill," without being very specific about exactly whom you're referring to, seems extremely problematic. 

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

this is yet another very insightful blog post (or A VERY GOOD QUESTION), I think this blog is really being LED BY THE LORD (so to speak)

it turns out that everybody but critical race theory leftists are mentally ill...all racists, all religious people, all conservatives...everybody except for the gabbling witches from sjwiki.org will be determined to be too crazy to have a gun

seriously, we know that large parts of the soft social sciences are just made-up leftist politically-correct lies...Obama and his dirtbag tribe are eager to medicalize dissent and give everybody but themselves a diagnosis...this was one of the hidden aims of Obamacare, to get all doctors working for the government, then to medicalize and report wrongthink through these newly dependent and supine doctors

John Craig said...

Anon --
Thank you. And yes, the social sciences are all about propaganda these days. If you're at a university and tell the truth about group differences, you'll lose your job.

The really funny thing is, Obama himself obviously suffers from narcissistic personality disorder, and is dishonest to the point where it's hard not to conclude that he's downright sociopathic. I've heard it said that he's probably bipolar as well.

Mark Caplan said...

Don't forget the mental illnesses Islamophobia, homophobia, and xenophobia. Presumably we need to keep guns from the hands of sickos with those conditions too.

John Craig said...

Mark --
Ha, good point!

Rona said...

And who exactly is Obama referring, anyway, when he talks of the "mentally ill?" If he were actually serious about limiting gun purchases to those with identifiable syndromes, exactly which syndromes is he referring to?
...
The "mentally ill" is an awfully vague category that covers a whole lot of people.
...
The idea of keeping guns from "the mentally ill," without being very specific about exactly whom you're referring to, seems extremely problematic.

It seems problematic only to us. To those in power vague categories offer complete control as, without exact definitions, the category "mentally ill" will be interpreted by the establishment. It offers wonderful flexibility and once the principle of denying "mentally ill" guns, all that remains is to put racists, homophobes, excessively patriotic, the religious and global warming denialists into the category.

What Obama didn't say was that organizations like the FBI are reluctant to go after Muslims precisely because of the politically correct atmosphere promoted by his own administration.

Exactly. If FBI was permitted to discriminate and focus on Muslims this shooting could have been avoided. Instead people are so terrified of being labeled racists that they not only don't do their job responsibly but actually ignore red flags.

This whole thing comes back to insanity of liberal principles of equalism, non-discrimination and anti-stereotyping. If one positions these principles as the foundations of morality, then, in order to be moral, one must literally deny reality. The result of this denial is Orlando, Paris, Brussels, Cologne, Rotherham and many more to come.

John Craig said...

Rona --
The Soviets used to do that, send dissidents to Siberian gulags on the pretext of insanity. I don't think the US is close to that point, but the vagueness of Obama's suggestion does make you wonder.

I agree, the reigning religion of equalism these days is all about denial of reality.

Anonymous said...

I agree with the first commenter, about this blog possibly being "led by the Lord," having never really thought of this way until I read the comment. Regarding Obama, the man is a socialist, intent on stripping Americans of their Constitutional rights, one of them being the Second Amendment, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." I don't think that Obama acts alone (obviously). There's a plan in place and he's attempting to carry it out. My question is for these Communists, if you love communism so much, why not go and live in an actual communist country, instead of destroying and trying to "transform" the country that you hail from? As a Christian, I do think about the book of Revelation, questioning if the times we are currently living in weren't foretold in the last book of the Bible. My take is that it all is coming together, making sense.

-birdie

John Craig said...

Birdie --
You and that other commenter are going to have to cut this out, otherwise I'm going to get a complex. And it's a little ironic that you would both say that about a post in which I implicitly criticized Christianity.

(It has occurred to me, though, that the reason I enjoy this blog, the reason I keep writing it, is partly because it allows me to play god; there, is that enough blasphemy for one post?)

Regarding Obama, the good news is that he's running out of time. The only problem is, Hillary's election would effectively give him a third term. I can't think of another election where I've cared so much about the outcome, not even 2012.

Anonymous said...

Ha! I'm pretty sure that we don't have to worry about you ever having or developing a god complex. The Big Guy (upstairs) could be using you for His purposes. In the past, I really haven't had much of an interest in politics. Maybe due to middle age, I now care and am interested in things that concern the country/world. It could also be because the times we live in are so topsy- turvy, unsettling (at times).

-birdie

John Craig said...

Birdie --
If He is using me, I have to confess, I'm entirely unaware of it.

Then again, I've always been a little on the naive side, unaware of when people are using me.

Lucian Lafayette said...

John,
This is a question I have been proposing to various prog/lib groups for some time without getting a response.

To further add to the generally vague statement of "the mentally ill" consider who will be on the panel making the determination of competence: Only after going through the entire list of political favours owed, appointments due to nepotism, old college friends, and favorite interns will those who work in the field of mental health be considered. Even then, sex, race, handicaps, and the sex of one's domestic partner will be more important than such mundane items as number of peer reviewed papers published.

Of course at the most basic level, the national government is making a case for removal of civil rights based on nothing more than some administrative "star chamber" procedure. Why not just go whole hog and get it over with. Toss out that pesky Miranda thing as well. Haul the suspects into the back of the p police station and beat a confession out of them.

Better not say that to often. It might give someone in DC ideas.

Luke

John Craig said...

Luke --
The reason you haven't been getting an answer is because there IS no answer. Too many people hear a vague statement like "we have to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill," which sounds reasonable enough on the surface, and think, oh yeah, of course, without really thinking about what such a policy would entail, and who exactly would be included in that group.

I'm starting to think that Mark Caplan (above) had it right: that the mentally ill will end up being defined as those who suffer from those dread diseases homophobia, Islamophobia, etc.

Great description of how academia works, btw.

The Ambivalent Misanthrope said...

A fantastic and refreshing post. My only gripe with it is too much harping on the evil of Islam. Regardless of what all is going on with the Islamist world these days (and it is evil, no doubt about it), the fact is that the vast majority of mass shootings in this country have been perpetrated by non-Muslim American men. No amount of Muslim profiling would have prevented Columbine or Sandy Hook or Virginia Tech. The problem is with testosterone! Just kidding... No, really. The problem really is that we are, apparently, a species with a hell of a lot of aggression and mutual hatred embedded in us. Hate --- maybe the DSM elders can make that into a diagnostic category? Fat chance.

I agree with you and many of the comments on here. We all live with a degree of dysfunction, neurosis and frustration. These are simply problems of living and being human. To try and map out a psychiatrically-based profile of what constitutes normal is a sure road to totalitarianism. Soon enough everyone would be required to take a pill -- or a handful --- to adjust their 'social adjustment' levels.

As for the tired Obama comments, yeah. It's really old and irritating. I think it's just a politically-correct convenience --- I don't believe he believes any of that dookie himself. That's what all the progressives want to hear. They all just want to pat themselves on the back and reassure themselves that they 'care.'

John Craig said...

Ambivalent Misanthrope --
You're female! Somehow I had missed that earlier, both from your other comment under this name and the ones under the "D" name. Yes, you're absolutely right, testosterone is to blame for most of the mass killings, females simply don't do this type of thing. The reason I don't dwell on that, the reason I don't find it all that interesting, is because it's okay to say so. If you say that, no one will bat an eyelash. There are other equally factual differences, of gender and race, which, if you mention them, will get you cast out of polite society. And which, for that reason, I find more interesting.

You're right, this was a messy post; I shouldn't have tried to squeeze two separate points in, I should have just made it about mental illness, it would have been cleaner. Too late to revise it now, though, that would make some of the comments above seem as if they were coming from nowhere.

I just checked out your blog. I should have checked it out earlier, and that too makes it clear you're female. Either that or you're the kind of guy who can admit he cries over The Velveteen Rabbit, which would make you extreeeeeeeemely confident in your masculinity.

The Ambivalent Misanthrope said...

LOL John Craig! You are right, I'm totally a female and I admit I cry over sentimental children's stories --- though I'd forgotten that little tidbit on my profile. Speaking of gender, I don't know --- these days it's becoming politically incorrect to insist that any gender differences are innate or essential. The progressive battle cry is that gender is purely a social construct. I remember piping in a class a few years ago and commenting on the fact that prisons are filled predominantly by males because men are statistically more prone to violence. My professor (who was female) took great offense at that, rebutting me by saying in an outraged tone that women can be violent too. "Well of course," I thought as I choked on my own unexpressed anger at her. "It's just that women are far less likely to act on it."

John Craig said...

Ambivalent Misanthrope --
I was going to say, in that previous comment you sounded more like an unambiguous misandrist, but in this one you sound more like a misogynist, so I guess that sorta averages out to misanthrope….

Arggh, too bad you're not a male, otherwise you could have kicked the crap out of that dumb professor and proven her wrong -- sorta. Or, maybe you should have done it anyway, though that would have been proving her right.

Anonymous said...

My worry with this sort of thing is that people who need help would stop seeking it if they knew it would lead to loss of privileges, and they'd suffer in silence. Mental health issues are a massive burden on the economy so it's in everyone's interest for them to be treated. I doubt Obama thought this through.

- Gethin

John Craig said...

Gethin --
I suppose that could happen. And yeah, given that Obama fits a few of these categories himself, I don't think he thought it thorugh either.