With which political party do you most affiliate?

[bcliff]

Any links suggesting this is a consistent, unified platform that goes by that term specifically? The article just seems to be the author saying, "These are my obviously logical, great ideas that anyone with a brain would support," which, again, is what anyone thinks of their own strongly held beliefs. I'm not saying that I agree or disagree, but touting one's ideas as "common sense" seems akin to saying "the correct ones" when asked what your opinions are. That may mean a whole lot of things to a whole bunch of different people.

If you do a web search for "common sense gun control" you'll find links to dozens of articles and websites referring to similar types of gun control, so regardless of whether this is the best umbrella term for this type of legislation (e.g. limiting high capacity magazines, closing gun show loopholes, mandatory background checks, etc.), it is the most concise and common way to refer to these laws as a group. I don't think the term "common sense" is being used literally, it's just the name given to this type of gun control - However correct or incorrect that may be.

Here's a piece from CNN, where Mayor Bloomberg & VP Biden refer to 'common sense gun control':

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/21/us/ny-biden-bloomberg/

Here's the President's plan to take 'common sense steps to reduce gun violence':

http://m.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_time_full.pdf

Here's a conservative (& very anti-UN) website's take on common sense gun control (very contrary to my stance, but worth a read):

http://libertycrier.com/common-sense-gun-control-definition/

The list goes on and on, but there's definitely consensus in the term.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[smalltownpsych]

If you do a web search for "common sense gun control" you'll find links to dozens of articles and websites referring to similar types of gun control, so regardless of whether this is the best umbrella term for this type of legislation (e.g. limiting high capacity magazines, closing gun show loopholes, mandatory background checks, etc.), it is the most concise and common way to refer to these laws as a group. I don't think the term "common sense" is being used literally, it's just the name given to this type of gun control - However correct or incorrect that may be.

Here's a piece from CNN, where Mayor Bloomberg & VP Biden refer to 'common sense gun control':

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/21/us/ny-biden-bloomberg/

Here's the President's plan to take 'common sense steps to reduce gun violence':

http://m.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_time_full.pdf

Here's a conservative (& very anti-UN) website's take on common sense gun control (very contrary to my stance, but worth a read):

http://libertycrier.com/common-sense-gun-control-definition/

The list goes on and on, but there's definitely consensus in the term.

Sounds like good old-fashioned political labeling to me. Who wouldn't be in favor of something that is common sense? My favorite example of this type of labeling is found in the abortion debate which is framed as "right to life" and "pro-choice". I like to look at the opposite wording are some people anti-choice and pro-death?

 

[bcliff]

Sounds like good old-fashioned political labeling to me. Who wouldn't be in favor of something that is common sense? My favorite example of this type of labeling is found in the abortion debate which is framed as "right to life" and "pro-choice". I like to look at the opposite wording are some people anti-choice and pro-death?

I agree. I think the "common sense" term makes more sense though, since several (most?) polls suggest the majority of Americans support "common sense" gun reform. I think Pew recently released poll results though suggesting that fewer people now support some of the proposed legislation so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

 

[QAsPsych]

89% of Americans support laws preventing those with mental illness from purchasing guns. Even as an advocate for fewer members of the public owning guns, I find that statistic disappointing.

 

[smalltownpsych]

89% of Americans support laws preventing those with mental illness from purchasing guns. Even as an advocate for fewer members of the public owning guns, I find that statistic disappointing.

I am also pretty strongly anti-gun myself and that stat bothers me on so many levels. The one that would upset my mom (the journalist) the most is to blame the media for this portrayal of the mentally ill. Another is that people with serious mental illness are not any more dangerous than the average person. Maybe if we took guns away from anyone with a drug or alcohol or assault arrest we would have better luck preventing gun violence. Finally, there is this dynamic of looking to mental health as an answer for behavioral problems like violence. We need to work on shifting this somehow because I seem to be able to help victims a lot more than I can perpetrators. After all, they are the ones who acknowledge and want help.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Thomas Paine once wrote an interesting monograph entitled...Common Sense

 

[WisNeuro]

89% of Americans support laws preventing those with mental illness from purchasing guns. Even as an advocate for fewer members of the public owning guns, I find that statistic disappointing.

It's a misleading question. It varies significantly depending on what people consider a mental illness. Does social anxiety disorder or dysthymia count as an exclusionary principle? Or does it have to be something more serious to loss of life like treatment refractory schizophrenia or chronic severe depression?

These polls are constructed to support an argument, not collect objective data.

As for the comment that the mentally ill are not more dangerous, the real answer is that it depends. Chronically depressed individuals are much more dangerous to themselves than a healthy control sample. Un-medicated schizophrenia? Chronic hard drug users? The stats are messy, but if you take the extremes, there is a difference. There are some people that should not own guns. If you have trouble with reality testing, or cannot stop yourself from using substances that impair judgment, then no, no guns for you. How's that for common sense?

 

[QAsPsych]

It's a misleading question. It varies significantly depending on what people consider a mental illness. Does social anxiety disorder or dysthymia count as an exclusionary principle? Or does it have to be something more serious to loss of life like treatment refractory schizophrenia or chronic severe depression?

These polls are constructed to support an argument, not collect objective data.

As for the comment that the mentally ill are not more dangerous, the real answer is that it depends. Chronically depressed individuals are much more dangerous to themselves than a healthy control sample. Un-medicated schizophrenia? Chronic hard drug users? The stats are messy, but if you take the extremes, there is a difference. There are some people that should not own guns. If you have trouble with reality testing, or cannot stop yourself from using substances that impair judgment, then no, no guns for you. How's that for common sense?

Most people have no clue about the differences in mental illnesses (and would probably also register their opinion that SAD and dysthymia aren't real), so I'd hardly call it misleading; it speaks to the reality of public perception of mental illness.

Anyway, no, I don't think that you can establish a morally defensible rationale for denying guns that are available to others based on the presence of some sort of SUD. I don't see any "common sense" about it. Gun control based on mental illness is bad but popular policy.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

It's a misleading question. It varies significantly depending on what people consider a mental illness. Does social anxiety disorder or dysthymia count as an exclusionary principle? Or does it have to be something more serious to loss of life like treatment refractory schizophrenia or chronic severe depression?

These polls are constructed to support an argument, not collect objective data.

As for the comment that the mentally ill are not more dangerous, the real answer is that it depends. Chronically depressed individuals are much more dangerous to themselves than a healthy control sample. Un-medicated schizophrenia? Chronic hard drug users? The stats are messy, but if you take the extremes, there is a difference. There are some people that should not own guns. If you have trouble with reality testing, or cannot stop yourself from using substances that impair judgment, then no, no guns for you. How's that for common sense?

I think the wording of the 2nd amendment is important in that it states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (i.e., eaten away at the edges over time).

 

[WisNeuro]

Gun control based on mental illness is bad but popular policy.

Why? We know for a fact that certain mental illnesses are at an increased risk of self-harm, a risk that has increased lethality if a gun is in the home?

I think the wording of the 2nd amendment is important in that it states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (i.e., eaten away at the edges over time).

The meaning of this is not agreed upon. Some argue that it pertains to the ability of states to maintain a militia, rather than the rights of individual citizens to keep weapons. Also, the Constitution is a living document. At some points in history it has been used to justify slavery. If we had never altered it's meaning over history, that would still be an institution.

 

[QAsPsych]

Why? We know for a fact that certain mental illnesses are at an increased risk of self-harm, a risk that has increased lethality if a gun is in the home?

That's a great argument for encouraging clients with said mental illnesses to give up guns. It's an awful argument for making it illegal. All sorts of people are at greater risk for all sorts of awful outcomes that would be reduced if only we kept them from something. Most people oppose creating policies that restrict only certain legal adults from doing things, based on risk factors. It's also a great policy for getting people to avoid seeking mental health treatment if we start denying them rights/privileges based not only on their current behavior but on their future potential risk even when they are stable.

 

[WisNeuro]

Just arguing for the concept generally. But I am all for denying certain people access to guns of we can demonstrate that they are at a greatly increased risk to use it for lethal means. If saving a significant number of lives is awful, I'm quite alright with being an awful person.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

That's a great argument for encouraging clients with said mental illnesses to give up guns. It's an awful argument for making it illegal. All sorts of people are at greater risk for all sorts of awful outcomes that would be reduced if only we kept them from something. Most people oppose creating policies that restrict only certain legal adults from doing things, based on risk factors. It's also a great policy for getting people to avoid seeking mental health treatment if we start denying them rights/privileges based not only on their current behavior but on their future potential risk even when they are stable.

I think it makes sense to clarify the distinction between 'rights' and 'privileges'

If it's a right...you don't have to ask to be able to exercise it. If you're asking your government for permission, it is a privilege.

I think we're at risk of forgetting sometimes that we the people have rights, we grant the government (and its agents) privileges.

If the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are able to be progressively and cumulatively infringed upon (not just the 2nd, 1st, 4th, and others as well) over time, then pretty soon there will be no rights left for the individual to attempt to exercise. It will be 'top-down' executive control from government officials who allow you the privilege to buy a new car, or a new house, or to eat a candy bar once per month, or to use the 'state's resources' of gasoline to visit your sick aunt in Minnesota. They will decide because they are stewards of the collective and you have no individual rights if a sophist can craft a shiny argument that the 'greater good' or 'collective will' trumps your notion that you own property or have any individual rights at all.

 

[bcliff]

I think it makes sense to clarify the distinction between 'rights' and 'privileges'

If it's a right...you don't have to ask to be able to exercise it. If you're asking your government for permission, it is a privilege.

I think we're at risk of forgetting sometimes that we the people have rights, we grant the government (and its agents) privileges.

If the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are able to be progressively and cumulatively infringed upon (not just the 2nd, 1st, 4th, and others as well) over time, then pretty soon there will be no rights left for the individual to attempt to exercise. It will be 'top-down' executive control from government officials who allow you the privilege to buy a new car, or a new house, or to eat a candy bar once per month, or to use the 'state's resources' of gasoline to visit your sick aunt in Minnesota. They will decide because they are stewards of the collective and you have no individual rights if a sophist can craft a shiny argument that the 'greater good' or 'collective will' trumps your notion that you own property or have any individual rights at all.

#SlipperySlope

 

[bcliff]

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Attempted pin-the-tail on the strawman jibe aside...

Are there data to indicate that, since the progressively restrictive gun control laws from 1776-2015, there has been any impact of these laws reducing the obviously out of control problem that our founders and their descendents in the 1800's had with blind people going around shooting, maiming, and killing their fellow citizens?

 

[WisNeuro]

Violent felons are citizens, even though we know they are at a high risk of recidivism, are they allowed guns too? And, I don't see the blind argument as a strawman. He didn't construct it, this is a right that is actively being lobbied for. It exists.

 

[QAsPsych]

I think the inability to see the difference between committing a violent crime and having a mental illness sums up these responses perfectly.

 

[WisNeuro]

In a sense, that is a strawman argument right there. The issue was an increased risk of harm to self or others. We know for a fact that some mental illnesses convey this increased risk.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Violent felons are citizens, even though we know they are at a high risk of recidivism, are they allowed guns too? And, I don't see the blind argument as a strawman. He didn't construct it, this is a right that is actively being lobbied for. It exists.

That's cool. So if instead of replying to and directly addressing the arguments that the pro-gun control folks are making here I were to, in reply, post a video of Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin making a speech with superimposed text from their gun control initiatives (they both had 'em)...I wouldn't be setting up a strawman (implying that you are taking up a position that you have not, as yet, advanced).

 

[WisNeuro]

The argument is that there are lines that are drawn, the "right" to own a gun is not completely unfettered in this country. Are you arguing for unfettered access for each and every citizen?

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Violent felons are citizens, even though we know they are at a high risk of recidivism, are they allowed guns too? And, I don't see the blind argument as a strawman. He didn't construct it, this is a right that is actively being lobbied for. It exists.

It isn't about constructing it. It's about setting up an argument/position that your opponent never took and demolishing that argument rather than directly responding to the argument that is being made.

 

[WisNeuro]

I would say that the argument that everyone has a right to own a gun was taken in the above statements.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

The argument is that there are lines that are drawn, the "right" to own a gun is not completely unfettered in this country. Are you arguing for unfettered access for each and every citizen?

I wouldn't think that a parent would allow a five year old to carry around a loaded weapon. But there have been times (many decades even) in our history where there was 'unfettered' access to firearms and, despite the movies from the 1950's portrayal of wild west life, the murder rate was far below modern day Chicago or, for that matter Mexico City.

 

[WisNeuro]

I wouldn't think that a parent would allow a five year old to carry around a loaded weapon.

"Allow," no, let have access to, all the time. Plenty of examples of children accidentally killing people with loaded forearms. Also, in that Wild West example, gun laws in that time were actually more restrictive than they were now.

 

[QAsPsych]

In a sense, that is a strawman argument right there. The issue was an increased risk of harm to self or others. We know for a fact that some mental illnesses convey this increased risk.

Pointing out your failure to understand nuance is not a strawman argument, not even "in a sense".

One of the things generally agreed to be part of the social contract is that committing a crime involves the involuntary giving up of certain privileges/rights. The argument for keeping guns from violent felons is not based on statistical likelihood of using weapons in a harmful manner.

 

[WisNeuro]

It's based on tenets of public safety, which is the same tenet requiring you to report suicide and homicide risk as a mental health professional.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Pointing out your failure to understand nuance is not a strawman argument, not even "in a sense".

One of the things generally agreed to be part of the social contract is that committing a crime involves the involuntary giving up of certain privileges/rights. The argument for keeping guns from violent felons is not based on statistical likelihood of using weapons in a harmful manner.

And, I hate to bring this up, but I don't think that most violent felons would have a very hard time getting their hands on a firearm within hours of wanting to do so despite any and all laws on the books against it. And, yes, I know that it is largely due to the fact that most people are still 'allowed' by their government to own firearms and so they are readily available. So are pitchforks, automobiles, baseball bats and battery acid.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

It's based on tenets of public safety, which is the same tenet requiring you to report suicide and homicide risk as a mental health professional.

Lots of state laws leave it up to the mental health professional as optional...even these days and even after Tarasoff I and II.

 

[WisNeuro]

Of course we can use the "anything is a weapon" defense. But we have lethality to consider. I can kill many more people, in a shorter amount of time with a gun. By that same argument, why not make tanks, missiles, nuclear weapons, etc widely available? They're just "arms," and the Constitution says we have a right to them?

And Tarasoff legislates homicidality, the other lethal means, suicidality, is much more universal.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Here's another angle on this, perhaps...

The central principle is the right to defend one's self. If some people in a society are allowed to own the most effective and affordable common weapon of the day (it used to be a sword, now it is a firearm) but others are not then you run the risk of creating, in essence, two societies. Once you have a group (say, 'government employees/officers') who are allowed to own firearms while other segments of society are not allowed to own firearms then you end up with one half of society being able to defend themselves (and intimidate the unarmed segment of society) while the other half is 'sh** out of luck.' This obviously creates a massive power imbalance. Human nature being what it is, the half of society that wields more physical power will be able to victimize the disarmed segments and will probably further the imbalance of power over time. This happened in Nazi Germany, it happened in Stalinist Russia, and Maoist China. I'm not saying we're anywhere near those historical extremes at this point but we sure seem to be gradually headed that way. By the way, I want to thank everyone in this discussion for remaining civil and respectful...this is a topic that pulls a lot of strong emotions (this tells me that you are passionate about your position and that it represents sincere and deep held moral beliefs on your part). These discussions help me try to clarify my position on these issues and why it is what it is.

 

[WisNeuro]

That ignores the WMD argument. The government has nukes, cruise missiles, etc. Should any citizen have a right to those?

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

That ignores the WMD argument. The government has nukes, cruise missiles, etc. Should any citizen have a right to those?

That's a tough one...but I agree that it does test the extremes of the argument for self-defense. I don't think many colonists in the 1700's would be able to buy/own/command their own Ship of the Line. I won't be making the argument any time soon that I need an intercontinental ballistic missile or a tanker full of sarin gas to defend myself against the random aggression of individual thugs (or small bands of thugs) acting outside the law and bent on doing me harm. WMD's seem to be the swords/guns of nations and not individuals. Although I appreciate the difficulty of 'scaling up' the argument to those levels.

 

[WisNeuro]

So, there is a line, but there is not a firm agreement to where that line is?

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

That's a tough one...but I agree that it does test the extremes of the argument for self-defense. I don't think many colonists in the 1700's would be able to buy/own/command their own Ship of the Line. I won't be making the argument any time soon that I need an intercontinental ballistic missile or a tanker full of sarin gas to defend myself against the random aggression of individual thugs (or small bands of thugs) acting outside the law and bent on doing me harm. WMD's seem to be the swords/guns of nations and not individuals. Although I appreciate the difficulty of 'scaling up' the argument to those levels.

And in terms of us being helpless against a government with tanks, helicopters, nukes, etc...it's about making it as difficult as possible for tyrants (and tyrannical government systems) to victimize a people. If the Jews in Nazi Germany had been armed (and had put up a fight) it would have been far more difficult for those bastiges to carry out the Holocaust. But it is also the spirit of resistance that makes as much impact as the weapon (probably why we won the American Revolution).

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

So, there is a line, but there is not a firm agreement to where that line is?

I think that there probably wasn't a line in the 1700's (cue the Ship of the Line analogy). But, it is horrifying to think that an individual would be able to use a nerve agent, a biological weapon, or a nuke to do massive wanton destruction. I'm just not sure how to handle those genie's that are out of the bottle, technologically speaking. I hope that the popular answer is not further encroachments on privacy to the extent that we all will be living in a transparent (in one direction) dystopian panopticon where 'government officials' get to spy on everyone (for our safety) but are not transparent to the public.

 

[WisNeuro]

The 1700's argument is weak considering the living document issue. It has to change with the times. Otherwise, my argument for justification of slavery holds. We are not beholden to wandering brigands anymore. Times change, imperialism is largely over. And, even if the govt wanted to subjugate the people, the mis-match in firepower is staggering. Arguments that made sense in 1770 are not always applicable to 2015.

 

[futureapppsy2]

In a sense, that is a strawman argument right there. The issue was an increased risk of harm to self or others. We know for a fact that some mental illnesses convey this increased risk.

I kind of dislike the broad term "harm to self or others," because I've seen it often used to encapsulate everything from non-suicidal self-injury to homicidality as the conceptually same thing, which they are not. It's the kind of broad lumping that gets suicidal ideation being treated as a conduct code violation by universities (which, yes, does happen. It's been ruled generally illegal--once it started happening frequently in the wake of Virginia Tech--but it still happens). NSSI=/=suicidality=/=homicidality, on many different levels.

 

[WisNeuro]

Fair enough, we can change the wording to increased risk of suicide attempt and completion and the sentiment is the same for that particular idea.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Another problem I have with restricting rights of mentally ill is that I don't want to be charged with making those determinations as it takes me out of the role of a healer and into the role of law enforcement. Ugh.

 

[WisNeuro]

Another problem I have with restricting rights of mentally ill is that I don't want to be charged with making those determinations as it takes me out of the role of a healer and into the role of law enforcement. Ugh.

Whether you like it or not, it's already part of your role as a clinician. In every state, you have a duty to report and have law enforcement intervene if you feel someone is a serious, imminent danger to themselves. In many states, you also have that duty to warn law enforcement and the intended victim if that patient is a danger to others. I imagine many of us have already had to engage in this role. I've involuntarily had people sent to locked units due to significant suicidal ideation twice already in a young career. Granted, I've worked with high suicide risk populations (BPD in the past, Veterans now), but this is not an uncommon duty that people encounter in many settings.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Fair enough, we can change the wording to increased risk of suicide attempt and completion and the sentiment is the same for that particular idea.

Eh, suicide risk is quite different than homicide risk, though, and homicide risk is the main driver of gun control legislation. People point to rare but extremely well-covered mass homicides as "evidence" that "them crazy people are violent," ignore literature that repeatedly refutes any significant link between violence and mental illness, and then try to say suicide is the same thing because they have no evidence to support their actual "obvious" claim ("crazy people will kill you"). It's just full of holes. Not to mention, there's a lot of post hoc circular "logic" when it comes to mental illness and suicide ("He was depressed because he committed suicide; he was suicidal because he was depressed.").

 

[WisNeuro]

Politically, yes, homicide risk is the main driver, but suicide risk should be considered. Yes, I am aware of the literature, it's messy, but generally states that mental illness does not generally lead to violence, rather it makes someone more prone to be a victim of violence. The literature on schizophrenia and disorders of affective regulation, are mixed, on that front. I can cite studies arguing for both sides of that one.

As for the suicide risk, some of those links are pretty clear regarding lethality and availability of guns. I'm not sure many would argue against the notion that the majority of people who successfully commit intentional suicide are currently depressed.