Jump to content

Mental illness


KaNuckles

Recommended Posts

Posted

Aren't people who are afraid to go outside for fear of disease or something bad happening to them considered mentally ill or at least have a disorder? So by that logic aren't all those who are scared of guns mentally ill? I think yes.

  • Replies 10
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Lester Weevils
Posted

The APA has a fat book of "official" numbered disorders, and just about any person can be fit to one or more of the diagnoses.

 

IMO various psychoses are the only ones that qualify as "illnesses" and an irrational fear of disease or guns would not necessarily be indicative of psychosis, though a psychotic could also have irrational fears along with more serious symptoms. I doubt that we can find anyone completely rational. Not even star trek's Spock was (or could have been) 100 percent rational.

 

Even various psychoses are crude "collections of symptoms" at the current poor advancement of psychology/psychiatry. For instance the universe of persons diagnosed with catatonia-- The symptoms are the same for all of them, but for all we know there could be 100 or 1000 different organic disease states that happen to cause what we term catatonia. This really isn't the fault of people in the field. The brain and people in general are much more complicated than "simple" stuff like physics or chemistry, and so it isn't surprising that advancement will be slower. A great deal of physics was developed with the crudest sort of low-tech equipment, centuries ago. Wheras looking into organic causes of mental illness is incredibly difficult even with the most high-tech of modern equipment.

 

Just sayin, a fella diagnosed "Hebephrenic Schizophrenia" is just an assortment of symptoms. It would be like diagnosing every person with a fever and swollen glands with the same disease, when in reality there are most likely thousands of disorders that could cause fever plus swollen glands.

Posted

Well, here's another thought to ponder on mental illness?

 

Why is mental illness always negative and many times results in tragedy, heinous crimes, suicide, etc. Why doesn't it ever result in good actions, going to work and giving all your money away to charity etc.?

 

Why doesn't a mental illness attack a persons inner demons, dark side, evil thoughts and enhance and nurture positive aspects of ones existence? There all stored in the same location(s) of the brain right?

 

As defined by the American Medical Association and U.S. criminal law as having a mental illness, could some of it just be unadulterated pure evil and demonic spirits? Through our DNA are we pre-programed to commit heinous acts or can we control them?

 

Questions, question?

Posted

The APA has a fat book of "official" numbered disorders, and just about any person can be fit to one or more of the diagnoses.

 

IMO various psychoses are the only ones that qualify as "illnesses" and an irrational fear of disease or guns would not necessarily be indicative of psychosis, though a psychotic could also have irrational fears along with more serious symptoms. I doubt that we can find anyone completely rational. Not even star trek's Spock was (or could have been) 100 percent rational.

 

Even various psychoses are crude "collections of symptoms" at the current poor advancement of psychology/psychiatry. For instance the universe of persons diagnosed with catatonia-- The symptoms are the same for all of them, but for all we know there could be 100 or 1000 different organic disease states that happen to cause what we term catatonia. This really isn't the fault of people in the field. The brain and people in general are much more complicated than "simple" stuff like physics or chemistry, and so it isn't surprising that advancement will be slower. A great deal of physics was developed with the crudest sort of low-tech equipment, centuries ago. Wheras looking into organic causes of mental illness is incredibly difficult even with the most high-tech of modern equipment.

 

Just sayin, a fella diagnosed "Hebephrenic Schizophrenia" is just an assortment of symptoms. It would be like diagnosing every person with a fever and swollen glands with the same disease, when in reality there are most likely thousands of disorders that could cause fever plus swollen glands.

Good job, Lester! And herein lies the problem with treating mental illness. So many of the illnesses are politicized and redefined

often enough to make almost everyone in the group. Actually, that's what the left wants to do. Add in the ACLU and their job done

to ruin the mental health system, it's no wonder we are having the problems we are.

 

A bit Orwellian, isn't it? :D

Posted

I think you guys get it. The point being who decides who is nuts and by what standards? EVERYBODY could be deemed mentally ill for some reason or other. Where does it end. Disagree with the government? Wear this straight jacket. Not saying it's happening (yet). But you really have to be careful with mental illness or it could be used to remove freedom. I don't really think people who are scared of guns are nuts. Just misinformed. But you see how easy it is. I saw an article where a lady said hanging out at shooting ranges is a red flag. If I can find it I'll post a link.

Guest Lester Weevils
Posted

I'm concerned that all this talk about the seriously mentally ill being so "dangerous" might do harm for seriously mentally ill people. There are some crazy people who are violent just like some "sane" people are violent. But most mentally ill are not especially violent, and it would be bad for poor crazy people to have a harder time in life because people are expecting them to be violent lunatics that could "go off" any time. Crazy people have a hard row to hoe without making it worse.

 

Ain't saying they have the right to carry sidearms, but the common perception that crazy people are always dangerous has always made life harder for them, and as said, I don't know if statistically speaking, crazy people are more violence prone than normals. Especially if they are on their meds.

 

In medical terminology, Acute means "it just recently happened" or sometimes means "it just happened and we expect it to go away". Chronic means its been happening a long time and ain't likely to get better.

 

Sometimes mental conditions can appear to be serious psychosis and "go away spontaneously". But usually if a person shows signs of serious mental illness, maybe it can be managed and sometimes a person can live close-to-normal lives, but it ain't usually gonna go away. So an acute psychosis is usually a person who has just recently gone crazy, and then after a year or two they will be called chronic psychosis the rest of their lives, even if with treatment the person functions "fairly well".

 

Psychosis is often degenerative with time. Maybe it comes on in childhood, teen years, middle age, old age. Whenever it starts out, it scares hell out of the patients because it is new and they don't know what has happened. When it is acute they often have agitation, strength, motivation, and are not thinking straight. If a psychotic is gonna be violent, it is the acute stage which is most hazardous, because their thinking and sensorium has not degenerated and they are still "functional" enough to organize a mass-murder or they are not so befuddled they still know how to load and fire a pistol, and they can move as fast or faster than normal people.

 

As the psychotic moves into the chronic stage, he often deteriorates so that he doesn't have good motor control and he is too confused to bathe or dress himself, and definitely too confused to plan and carry out a nefarious plot. So a long-term chronic psychotic might "get weird" and become violent, but they are so befuddled that they are not typically a big huge danger. I'm just saying, if a chronic psychotic decided to try to beat you up, it would be a lot easier to defend against the poor befuddled chronic psychotic than if you had to defend yourself against a young healthy clear-thinking pissed off thug.

Posted

Lester, you and I are crazy as Hell, but I enjoy the craziness, so there. :D

 

It's become one more issue that evil people have ruined to push their agenda. There are serious mental illness cases that

don't get the care they should because of evil politics, the way I see it.

Guest cardcutter
Posted

My problem in a nutshell is this. Who gets to define mental illness? And who gets to decide wich ones will preclude ownership. Does fear of high places mean you shouldn't own a gun? What about arachnaphobia or fear of the number 13?

Where do we draw the line?PTSD?

Guest Lester Weevils
Posted

My problem in a nutshell is this. Who gets to define mental illness? And who gets to decide wich ones will preclude ownership. Does fear of high places mean you shouldn't own a gun? What about arachnaphobia or fear of the number 13?

Where do we draw the line?PTSD?

 

Thanks cardcutter. That is an excellent question, getting right to the crux of the matter.

 

Hopefully someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the way it is CURRENTLY set up, that if someone was hospitalized and treated for mental illness, that is the most likely way the government can find out about someone being "crazy" in the background check? Maybe they would have had to even be court-committed in order to end up on the current list? I think a psychiatrist or any MD might could "add someone to the list" if they seemed to present an obvious hazard. But medical confidentiality laws might keep lots of folks off the current list, who are crazy as a bedbug and ought not be toting guns, but have been treated privately, and never hospitalized or committed?

 

I feel "pretty safe" that not too many injustices will be done if people hospitalized and/or committed are automatically added to the list. Beds are so scarce compared to the number of people who really would do better in a hospital than fending for themselves (for their own welfare as much as the public welfare), I doubt if too many folks get committed that are not genuinely crazy. Back in the 1970's when I worked at a psychiatric hospital, there were LOTS more beds available than today, and I can only recall seeing a couple of neurotics in the hospital, and they were probably not there on commitment. I personally think most neurotics should be fine to own guns, and everybody is somewhat neurotic about something or t'other. It was just about all fairly serious bad-off psychotics even back then. I'd guess nowadays somebody would have to be really crazy for a hospital to open up a bed for them.

 

Some private mental hospitals might get less-sick wives or children of rich folks. Like for instance a dominating uptight dad and mom get the kid committed not because the kid is crazy, but because the kid won't behave. Or a domineering hubbie gets a sassy wife put away for awhile. That kind of stuff might happen among people who can afford private care, dunno. Beds are too short supply for it to fly in state institutions.

 

If they start adding restrictions it could get real nutty and ambiguous. I don't know if PTSD would be a good excuse or not. Some cases are pretty bad. I had a friend who was an excellent marine and came home from vietnam REAL messed up and he got a job as a deputy sheriff as soon as he got back. He settled down after a couple of years and was fine, but it really wasn't that great that they hired him for a deputy right out of nam. I'm sure lots of other soldiers fresh back from nam would have been fine, but my friend was just barely holding it together for a couple of years and its kinda lucky something bad didn't happen.

 

Other than psychotics, it might be beneficial to keep guns away from "non crazies" with uncontrollable anger issues, pitifully poor impulse control, or incredibly bad judgement. None of those would "necessarily" have much of a psychiatric diagnosis, but I'm sure you have met rednecks from hell that you would feel better off if they stayed out of your face and preferably not toting a gun.

 

But I don't know any reliable fair way to weed out guys like that. The legal system weeds some of them out for us, because those kind of guys tend to get a criminal record and disqualify themselves thataway.

 

I'm not advocating more and better disarming of crazies and flakes. Merely discussing the issue, from what little I know of it.

Guest cardcutter
Posted (edited)

notOn a lighter note:  Some days Paranoia is nothing more than a finely honed sense of self preservation!

 

Or my favorite bumper sticker: Just because I am paranoid does Not mean that they are not all out to get me!

Edited by cardcutter
Guest Lester Weevils
Posted

One oldie-- Neurotics build castles in the air, but psychotics live in them.

 

Another-- A paranoid is someone who knows a little of what's going on. A psychotic is a guy who's just found out what's going on. --William S. Burroughs

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

TRADING POST NOTICE

Before engaging in any transaction of goods or services on TGO, all parties involved must know and follow the local, state and Federal laws regarding those transactions.

TGO makes no claims, guarantees or assurances regarding any such transactions.

THE FINE PRINT

Tennessee Gun Owners (TNGunOwners.com) is the premier Community and Discussion Forum for gun owners, firearm enthusiasts, sportsmen and Second Amendment proponents in the state of Tennessee and surrounding region.

TNGunOwners.com (TGO) is a presentation of Enthusiast Productions. The TGO state flag logo and the TGO tri-hole "icon" logo are trademarks of Tennessee Gun Owners. The TGO logos and all content presented on this site may not be reproduced in any form without express written permission. The opinions expressed on TGO are those of their authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the site's owners or staff.

TNGunOwners.com (TGO) is not a lobbying organization and has no affiliation with any lobbying organizations.  Beware of scammers using the Tennessee Gun Owners name, purporting to be Pro-2A lobbying organizations!

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to the following.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines
 
We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.