Quantcast

Firearms company owners start non profit to team with mental health professionals

Discussion in 'Activism' started by hso, Dec 21, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    50,794
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
    Out of the box thinking lead the owners of Eagle Imports to start a non profit to work with the mental health industry.

    https://www.ammoland.com/2018/12/wt...0_6f6fac3eaa-753c26ad18-7170233#axzz5aKMmepAW

    https://walkthetalkamerica.org/ment...k-the-talk-america-a-letter-from-our-founder/

     
  2. jar

    jar Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2003
    Messages:
    729
    Location:
    Texas!!!!!
    About time the issue actually gets addressed. Now let's try to address general responsibility. I'd love to see support for really addressing public safety such as Law Enforcement impounding and confiscating the car and say a thousand dollar first offense fine if a driver is seen talking on the phone while driving. Of course let the folk retain their phones so they can call someone to come pick them up.
     
  3. Zoogster

    Zoogster Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,168
    The problem is that mental health is a spectrum and changes politically and socially over time. Traits desirable while settling the west may be called a mental illness today. Being gay was a mental illness not that long ago, yet suddenly was not when society determined they wanted to remove the stigma of it. What is normal mental function becomes a construct of society that changes over time, and that can be okay in of itself, but when you start linking legal rights to an arbitrary construct that changes at the whim of society you play a dangerous game. With mental health that is exactly what is done. What a person would be considered crazy for in California may just be normal in Texas.
    So there is certain things and people that we can all understand and agree are dangerous or potentially dangerous loons, but when you give arbitrary power to mental health tie it in with Obama care and health insurance, combined with funding and bureaucratic decision making, and then get everyone to see a shrink and get diagnosed with any little thing they can find to secure funding in the insurance and bureaucratic 'job making' system of spending tax payer and mandated health insurance premium dollars, you are heading down a dark path.

    Do not be too quick to forget what psychiatrists and other mental health professionals did in the not so distant past. Insane asylums were like something out of a middle age dungeon all under the pretense of the latest understanding of science. Lobotomies intentionally destroying parts of the brain, electric shock, constant experimental medication. The mental health system is certainly beneficial to society, but when given too much power quickly becomes a tool used to control. When you tie members of it to getting incomes and making a living dealing with court suspects for example you can routinely strip people of their rights without even having them commit crimes that would result in a loss of any rights.
    And in certain jurisdictions that are unfavorable to gun rights removing your guns is already becoming so easy just a hunch or bad feeling is enough at least temporarily to take guns out of someone's possession against their will. And guess what happens to someone's nice collection even if they commit no crime and get them taken and stacked in an evidence room before going through steps to have them returned? Yeah they won't be so valuable all scratched and damaged.

    The mental health system is very left leaning as well and generally does not support firearm ownership. Many of the mental health professions are also much easier to enter not needing a science degree and instead an arts degree. Nothing wrong with an arts degree but the barrier to being an expert of the mind is much lower and what a lot of people that couldn't do something harder fall back on. It is no medical doctor (and even if they were the actual medical system is not favorable in big publications to firearm rights either often coming out of anti-gun New England.) I think that is why they end up at crazy points in history like destroying the brains of people pieces at a time and seeing how it impacts their behavior. Or other 'cures' they figure out including medicines that do very strong things to the body, or keep people in permanent zombie states.
    I don't want to enable that kind of thing again or give that profession control over society.
    If that becomes what happens rights will be an arbitrary thing possessed by those in current acceptable social standing within society when they have issues in life, and those not in a good position will be found to have illnesses that make them lower members of society. The most insane will still be found insane from all classes, but in lower classes the thresh hold will be far lower as the diagnosis will be made more readily. It will just be like the court system but more arbitrary where the bigger pocketbook gets better representation without the checks and balances of the court system like a trial by jury. Mainly used for petty things as more severe things would have been handled by criminal proceedings anyways.
     
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2018
    Doc Samson, JTHunter, glc24 and 3 others like this.
  4. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    4,859
    Location:
    Virginia
    I agree with zoogster. I can foresee the day, in the not-so-distant future, when the mere desire to own a gun is going to be labeled a "mental illness," and then that "mental illness" being used to preclude the person from getting a gun. The perfect Catch-22. Yes, social concepts of "mental illness" change over time. A lot of city people, even today, think that gun fans are literally "nuts."
     
    troy fairweather likes this.
  5. rust collector

    rust collector Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    1,165
    Location:
    Pierre, SD USA
    So do we want to have input into definitions and processes, or do we just want to wring our hands over what others have done in the past? There are plenty of opportunities for abuses and misunderstandings, but it is in our best interest to do what we can to keep people with reduced impulse control from hurting themselves or others. Federal law speaks of persons adjudged mentally defective. Who would you have define that term? Academics or those with a more practical and less partisan approach?
     
  6. JTHunter

    JTHunter Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,789
    Location:
    Southwestern Illinois
    Considering the dangerous and invasive nature of so many of these new "Emergency Protective Order" laws (a.k.a. "Red Flag"), it would be better to try and limit the "mental health" aspects. Imagine these societal "redefinitions" that HAVE occurred and how those definitions MIGHT change in the future. As AlexanderA said: A lot of city people, even today, think that gun fans are literally "nuts."
     
    AlexanderA likes this.
  7. GEM

    GEM Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    4,923
    Location:
    TX
    Let's stay away from just complaining and more to the technical topic.
     
  8. Mowgli Terry

    Mowgli Terry Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2016
    Messages:
    546
    Location:
    Tennesse-former Confederacy
    You need to find out what's really going on. I did this for a bunch of years so stick with me on this. When we would evaluate an individual for harm to self or others we needed to document carefully an assessment. A credentialed clinician would sign off on a certificate of need. The local law enforcement agency would transport the individual to a MH facility. The assessment would be continuous. After seventy-two hours if the person was stable a referral was made back to the mental health center. The individual would have services offered. In these laws we are talking about the documentation would be presented to a judge. The judge would would make a decision about the firearms. The documentation would have to support that person as unstable. Any phony business could have serious repercussions for those going to the judge. It might do well to see exactly what the procedure is in your community before making a judgements. What if after a judicial hearing the names went into the NCIC? . My problem is this knee jerk reaction to these laws may backfire on us. Expect to be hit with the number of mass shooting the could have been avoided by these laws. Might also ask is the person who is before the judge have a right to an attorney? Another aspect of this is that I know of one incident here where the police just took the firearms from the home. How would that fly with no judicial review? Think about it. Get more information.

    Addendum: Look up the DSM-5 to find out about diagnostic criteria for mental illness. It's not seat of the pants or who you voted for.
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2019 at 3:34 PM
    rust collector likes this.
  9. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    50,794
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
    This was not a "red flag law" thread. We have had those in General and Legal.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice