Discussion → To Shun a Gun
-
On GUNS, my cross-posting: Yes, I am lost to account for the seismic shift in cultural thinking away from "wrongdoing" as a motive in crime toward "mental illness" (supposedly "the inability to distinguish right from wrong").
There seems to be a new unwillingness to think of "fiction" as artificial, as (not) having the same consequences as gun violence in life.
People are avoiding saying "feminist" in the gun-related posts but not "misogyny" --
It seems that a stern social reflection against life-threatening expressions (forbidding social atmospheres) that we create within public spaces (of our attitudes and beliefs) may help to control tyrannical use of weapons. My position is to control guns, to train people who use them, to keep sport guns in a sport locker, to train police to disarm people with guns -- the beginning of a list. Archery.
I have known many diagnosed people but no one metallic in violence. Studies have shown that the general public is more violent and that the diagnosed are more likely to be crime victims.
The friend who wrote ... the plaque of mental illness ... I love that! I should tell him that plaque is formed of calcium -- I just learned that at the dentist! -- calcium that oozes out at the gum line from the teeth. It is bones attempting to leave the body of diagnosed persons via the mouth. Ha! Thank goodness I am attentive in all health matters.
I have two rights: to own a gun and NOT to own one. I would rather have two rights than none in that area.
-
753 comments. Has anyone seen a suggestion today by a gun expert who names even one make and model of any weapon that could SAFELY be eliminated? It seems people's passion is for a discussion of mental illness instead. It seems quite likely that nearly every woman in America has found herself one day or other sitting knee-to-knee with a therapist. Unless she paid for the visit or visits herself, the therapist entered a diagnostic code related to that woman on insurance forms. Some men have found themselves in a therapist's office as well, perhaps too late to save a marriage or following job loss. I appreciate this editorial in many of its details, and yet the writer advocates controlling a group of people who scarcely know each other and who are not in fact "a people" in the sense that they are organized in communities as family units. Despite his seemingly accurate knowledge, the writer suggests eliminating that group's two rights, both the assumed right to own a gun and the right not to own one, without offering as sacrifice any other group, such as "those initiating divorce" or "the elderly" or "the young" or, God forfend, a specific ethnic or marital status group or other illness group such as "people with cancer" -- WOW, am I feeling shunned by the insistence on the anti-morals of the new society. Shun guns, not persons.
-
Here is my sudden fear based on whiffs based on headlines. Diagnosed people and all of us have two rights: to own a gun and not to own one. It seems Obama has been after Congress -- and here the NRA may find its concession with him -- to prohibit mentals not guns, not to restrict guns, but to restrict three rights, not one -- if it is a right to own a gun -- based on providing all our medical records to gun dealers. Carol Novack had explained that her research of the 2nd Amendment had yielded her finding that the states are allowed to form a militia. I agreed more with Romney on gun control based on his track record as Governor of Massachusetts, where he had done more to curb guns than Obama had or has in office as President. But I am also still freaked because I had gone as a non-required walk-in to therapy in an office now focusing on "behaviorial health" in search of therapy. I was in for a specific reason but reported in passing that I was pleasantly dating someone and attending orchestra concerts. The following week an undercover police guard, of some jurisdiction, local or federal, let me know that he was in the hall as I exited the therapist's office. I wrote to ACLU about that and the therapist's invoking a law during our otherwise routine session, for which her office billed Medicare-related insurance $360 and $250 per hour -- ten times what my psychiatrist was paid when he still accepted Medicare. ACLU-MN replied to my letter saying that it lacked the resources to represent the case. I doubt that I would have the resources then. What was the law she invoked? Not possible yet to find out though I sometimes ask lawyers I know.
Group Description
Diagnosis = dx
Diagnosed = dx'd
Treatment = tx
Prescription = rx
Ph.D.
M.D.
Psy.D.
M.S.W.
M.Ed.
D.Ed.
L.I.C.S.W.
D.S.M.-IV
S.S.D.I.
S.S.I.
Medicare
Medicaid
b'cy
A.D.A.
My book not written is to be called Dx'd. We can't copyright titles, but I want that one, and earned it in Tx in TX.
This is a public group.
Anyone can see it and join.