Particularly patients with mental health issues that predispose them to violence; should they be allowed to own guns, parent children and enjoy the freedoms that non-mental health patients enjoy without permission from govt. at some level?
Should all of society be subjected to routine mental health examinations to ensure that no one slips through the cracks?
I vote no...
Only to the point of safety. If someone has a violent history because of mental or any other reason...they should not have a gun.
As far as raising kids, as long as they are treating the children well and taking care of them the gov should not interfere.
The legal definition and the medical definition of "mental health issues" are two very different things.
As it currently stands in the USA, it doesn't matter if you are drunk, depressed, schizophrenic, bipolar, a PTSD suffer, or whatever. By law, if you are capable of understanding the consequences of your actions, you are legally responsible for your behavior. While that definition doesn't always work, it's pretty clear cut and works most of the time.
In constrast, the world of mental health diagnosis/treatment is a very smeary gray subjective domain, with a relatively poor history of avoiding horrible overreach.
How do you identify people "...with mental health issues that predispose them to violence?" I can't do it. Can you?
There is fairly good neurological evidence that political conservatives typically have a larger amygdala (an area of the brain associated with fear-based "fight or flight reactions) compare to political liberals. Conversely, political liberals tend to have a larger anterior cingulate gyrus (an area of the brain associated with processing of novel information) than conservatives.
Does this mean conservatives have "mental health issues that predispose them to violence?" I wouldn't necessarily say so and, compared to most psychological/neurological findings, the conservative/liberal brain structure difference is one of the most consistent and most predictive models out there.
The mental health field is simply too inexact a science and people are too unpredictable (in most cases) to make your suggestion much more than something we can apply in obvious cases.
I'm talking legislatively and by "mental health patients" I mean just that: patients with mental health diagnoses, particularly those that predispose them to violent behavior or outburst, whether they've actually been violent or not.
How about this one / these...
http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/bipolar-disorder/violence-bipolar-d...
Could I see that fairly good evidence about the "amygdala," sounds intriguing, have it on hand?
Well yeah, safety is the whole purpose, right? How do we know if someone has a violent history or mental health issue without requiring that everyone be screened?
How do we know that they are treating their children well without actively monitoring their family?
Do you mean an increase in limitations? Mental patients are already limited and have a record that shows up on background checks which eliminates their right to buy a gun {Legally}, also limits where they can be employed, also DMV, etc.
Yes
appropriately
Maybe
Yes
appropriately
no
I have no idea what this means, but thanks for responding :)
Well Boz, that only confirms what we already knew... We're mental mutants ;)
@Fork -- Here's one informative link about the conservative-liberal brain structure differences.
With respect to your link and the association between childhood trauma, bipolar disorder and violent behavior, I think the key word to understand here is association. If you look at population of people who had childhood traumas and compare that to a population of people who had a "normal" loving upbringing, you will find a significantly greater incidence of individuals with bipolar/violent behavior. But that only a tendency, not a certainty.
Consider the following: if you took a population of African-Americans from poor inner-city neighborhoods and compared their crime/violence statistics to a similar group taken from the broader overall US population, you would also see greater incidence of criminality/violent behavior in that group of African-Americans. Does that mean that African-Americans shouldn't be able to purchase firearms or raise children?
The two situations are extremely similar. Moreover, we should consider the case of neuroscientist James Fallon who, while studying genetic and physiological factors apparently common to many serial killers, discovered that his own genome and brain structures fit the pattern.
Fallon believes the difference between him and the serial killers he studies is that he had a fairly loving supportive upbringing, so his psycopathy manifests as being a selfish/self-righteous jerk in some domains (but not violence or criminality) while most of his study participents had harsh/abusive upbringings.
So, do we limit the rights of people based on their physiology/genetic markers? Or do we determine if they had a lousy childhood and limit their rights on that basis?
I understand the laudable desire to stop violence, criminality, and abuse before it can happen by figuring out who are the most likely people to engage in those behaviors. But the predictive power of the cognitive sciences just isn't strong enough to make that possible right now.
@Bozette -- Political beliefs are a complex mix of factors: genetic, environmental (esp. family structure and upbringing), social, cultural, and linguistic.
By conventional measures, I held fairly conservative/libertarian views in my youth, and became more and more "liberal" in my beliefs as I grew older. I attribute this transformation to going from a fairly sheltered environment with a limited understanding of history to learning more and more about how the world actually works, and inferring that the moral values I treasure (esp. Care/Protection from Harm and Fairness/Reciprocity) do NOT spontaneously arise in societies with "free markets" and "limited government." Rather, fairly aggressive social/governmental intervention has to be applied to prevent "The Lord of the Flies" (or present-day Somalia).
Without more details about your life path and the influences in it (or those of your friend), I would be simply guessing wildly at how either of you came to your current political beliefs.
As a starting point for thinking about this, I strongly recommend this video of George Lakoff explaining how something as seemingly universal as "family values" are a contestable concept with very different manifestations.
If they did, who would vote for Hillary?
Ask a bunch of questions, get a bunch of answers.
So that's a maybe to owning guns, a yes to parenting, an "appropriately" to enjoying the freedoms of all non-mental health patients and a no to routine mental health exams, correct?
I would love to know how you define "appropriately," but I suppose I've asked you enough questions for today. lol
They should limit any use of anything by mental patients by DOCTOR, as in medical professional. Not by law. If a doctor says the person is incompetent. Then he is incompetent. If there are laws on the books governing this, then he is incompetent by law.
We are not having government officials digging their noses into this issue any more than it already is.
"So, do we limit the rights of people based on their physiology/genetic markers? Or do we determine if they had a lousy childhood and limit their rights on that basis?"
Sure, why not? Let's go with the genetic markers, that could be fun. And keep the surveillance of parents raising children, for good measure. Don't want anyone slipping through the cracks.
Aye or Nay?
To answer your question, no. I don't think any particular group should have their ability to purchase a firearm restricted... that's on the whole. Group-think just doesn't do it for me.
So you went from "libertarian / conservative views" to "Liberal beliefs?" Is that a giant leap or something?
Ooh, not just mental mutants... mental mutants from Somalia! Holy crap, how long has it been since you heard that story; Somalia.
Didn't James Holmes doctor attempt that?
Law has to enter the equation at some point, otherwise the whole process is essentially toothless, no?
