Let’s not let medicated paranoid schizophrenic people with a history of gun violence and a dishonorable discharge from the military, have access to security clearances or military weaponry stored at military bases.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Rapidly Accelerating Sea Level Rise
- Technology Advances
- “The Hour Of Decision”
- “fair & equitable”
- Michael Mann Continues His War
- Time Travelling Satellites
- Time Traveling Satellites
- Adult Content On X
- The Climate Of 1923
- Arctic Report Card
- Green Colorado
- Hottest Summer Ever
- “Sea ice could be gone by 2012, scientists warn”
- Record CO2 Growth
- Walz’s For Trump
- 6,000 Year Old Tree In The Austrian Alps
- Gemini Can See The Future
- Clinton To Defeat Trump By Double Digits
- Climate Intelligence Means “Making Things Up”
- Comedy From The BBC
- The Climate Afterlife
- Rewriting The Northern Hemisphere
- Useful Graphs From ChatGPT
- Fort Lauderdale Drowning
- Sinking Of The Titanic
Recent Comments
- czechlist on “The Hour Of Decision”
- Trevor on Rapidly Accelerating Sea Level Rise
- Trevor on Rapidly Accelerating Sea Level Rise
- arn on Technology Advances
- Billyjack on “The Hour Of Decision”
- arn on “fair & equitable”
- arn on Michael Mann Continues His War
- Bob G on “fair & equitable”
- Bob G on Michael Mann Continues His War
- arn on Michael Mann Continues His War
In general, I’m against the government deciding who is sane or insane. But your very narrowly worded law is probably acceptable.
I think the “with a history of gun violence” is the key. If people have a history of gun violence, sane or insane, their rights to carry a gun should be limited (e.g., they should be locked up)
The legal responsibility of the medical field in this matter can get complicated very quickly:
Who gets to decide precisely which psychiatric diagnoses preclude gun ownership?
Will the intent be to prevent suicide as well as murder or other crimes?
Will such ICD codes be contained in a govt database?
Who bears the responsibility of making the dx?
Will the dx require two independent opinions?
Will physicians be mandated to report such conditions to the govt? If so, are they reimbursed for the time and effort needed to do this? What is the penalty for failure to do so?
After the dx is made and the patient gets on the “no gun permitted” list, how do they get off the list if/when their condition gets better? Which physician would be willing to remove someone from the list and put themselves at legal risk? How do you get an ICD code removed from a govt database? What if a relapse goes undetected?
Will the physician or mental health care worker be legally liable if misses or fails to make an accurate dx and a patient goes out and kills people? This is far from an exact science. Will malpractice premiums skyrocket even more as a result of such legislation?
Will the health care system reimburse health care providers for adequate time to properly assess a patient’s tendency for violence?
Will patients purposely withhold information from their physician if they know that information will prevent them from obtaining a gun? Open unencumbered communication is essential for good health care.
I could go on.
I remember a time when what the patient and doctor said to each other was none of anyone else’s business.
EXACTLY!
Imagine the types currently working at the IRS becoming influential on definitions of sanity, on what rights should be taken from the insane, and on what authorities matter. Even if it starts out with good intentions and good people, it WILL be used for political purposes.
Given your monicker the only thing to conclude is that you are universally insane 🙂
Reblogged this on The Firewall.
Reblogged this on Brittius.com.
From Drudge
REPORT: Gunman entered with shotgun, picked up weapons inside…
REPORT: No AR-15 involved; shotgun, 2 handguns…
Lee Malvo shoplifted the Bushmaster used in the DC sniper shootings. Crazy and evil people will always have guns, and that is why like CO2, the more the merrier.
Steven:
That is already supposed to be the law.
Was this latest gunman medicated? If had prescriptions, was he compliant taking them? I don’t think we know yet.
I’d bet money he was on prescription psychiatric drugs, just like every other mass murderer (killing 4 or more in a setting) of the past 50 years (except one). The crazies who aren’t on prescription drugs aren’t the ones committing mass murders. People who never exhibited violent tendencies often do so after taking anti-depressants and other psychiatric drugs. Objective studies show the drugs are addictive, and so even if he hadn’t been compliant in taking them, the withdrawal symptoms include violence and suicidal tendencies.
Cite any peer-reviewed reference for your assertions.
Hint: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
Name any antidepressant or antipsychotic that is addictive and cite your “objective” study. In my experience, patients dislike the side effects and many are noncompliant (in contrast to, say, opiates like OxyContin).
I do agree, though, that some patients have idiosyncratic reactions (e.g. anger, suicidal ideation, violence) to a number of the drugs either upon taking them or upon withdrawal.
I caution you not to overgeneralize. These meds benefit many people. Remember the sanitoriums prior to the invention of antipsychotics. The percentage of mass-murderers in this country is exceedingly tiny, and with the “small n” it is difficult to establish causation between meds and violence.
John, I believe the peer-review process is ineffective in this area, just as in climate science. Psychiatrists (who deal almost exclusively in drug prescriptions rather than therapy these days) have a vested interest in keeping their professions legitimate and lucrative. They work closely with companies that develop and test these drugs, and these companies also have a vested interest in insisting they are not addictive and do not have disastrous side effects. I’m not suggesting that psychiatrist are pro-actively facilitating mass murder, just that they are naturally biased and victims of group think
Dr. Peter Breggin is a good source for this point of view:
http://breggin.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=75&Itemid=133
But there are others:
http://libertyandsuch.com/anti-depressants-linked-to-mass-murders/
http://beforeitsnews.com/health/2012/07/mass-murders-and-the-ssris-connection-2417899.html
Also, I’ve dealt personally with 2 different friends. The mother of friend 1 had worked with her for 15 years, several doctors, trying to get prescriptions right. Friend 1 became more and more dysfunctional in society. Finally, the mother helped her go cold-turkey–a horrible decision, but in the end it worked. Friend 1 has a full time job, is happy, and calls anti-depressants “criminal.” Friend 2 was quickly prescribed drugs to deal with a small crisis, and it nearly ruined her life. Withdrawal was excruciating, with several failed attempts before she was successful. Worrying about friends, I have talked to many people and read many discussion forums of people on these drugs, and I am convinced they are addictive.
I’m a chemical engineer, so chemistry, systems, and feedback loops are not foreign to me. No, anecdotes don’t make good science, but the science presented by Breggins and others I’ve read, and the statistics on mass murder, and an understanding of the motivations of psychiatrists and drug companies add up.
I appreciate your thoughtful response. I won’t issue a blanket defense of the pharmaceutical industry or psychiatrists in general, but I do believe there is a time and place and patient for medications. I’ve always maintained a healthy degree of skepticism of drug company literature, as multiple times in the past they have withheld critical safety and efficacy data from physicians and the public.
John, Thank you. I agree, there is a time/place/patient for such medication. But it’s alarming to me that 1 in 5 people (including 1 in 4 women), for example, are on anti-depressants, and this number has risen while the number in therapy has fallen. I mean, have 20% of people evolved that inefficiently to require chemical intervention in the brain?
For me personally, I’d probably have to be force-fed before taking them.
Of course the powers-that-be like these sorts of people having firearms for the obvious reasons.
In the old days this guy would have been in an institution. Nowadays, well, we can’t be judgmental.
He was given every break, shot out tires of a auto parked in front of his house, shot thru ceiling into upstairs neighbor’s apartment, had other problems and still retained his CCW permit and got secret security clearance. Looks like PC run amuck.
You would think that NSA would have been aware. Their haystack is so big the needles get lost.
The only way to prevent an adult from having a gun is . . .
wait for it . . .
LOCK THEM UP!
Amen