DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
WebWar
HTML https://webwar.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Ιστορία κ&#...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 4400--------------------------------------------------
Ελεύθερη
Οπλοφορία
ΚΑΙ για τους
ΚΑΘΥΣΤΕΡΗΜΕΝΟΥ]
DIR By: FringeElements
Date: December 24, 2012, 6:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]
HTML http://i45.tinypic.com/jip1t0.jpg
Don’t Disarm the Mentally Ill[/center]
by Mark R. Crovelli
The school shooting in Connecticut last week has provoked a slew
of hysterical calls for gun control in the United States. Big
surprise, I know. What makes the calls for "regulation" and
"sensible gun laws" somewhat unique this time around is the
focus on mental illness. The fact that the Connecticut shooter
is alleged to have been mentally ill is being used by some as an
argument for further disarming the mentally ill in general. (It
is also interesting that so little focus has hitherto been
placed on the dangerous drugs these shooters are all taking,
rather than mental illness itself).
Gun rights groups have understandably steered clear of the
mental illness issue. On first glance, it just seems like common
sense that people with mental illness should not be running
around the streets with guns, and groups like the NRA have
sidestepped the issue in order to focus on other concerns, like
making sure an assault weapons ban is not reinstated. This looks
like a politically savvy move by these groups, but it is also a
cowardly way to avoid having to stand up for a very vulnerable
and voiceless group of people. If these gun rights groups had
any worth at all, or if they had one shred of moral fortitude,
it would be time for them to stand up for the rights of this
extremely vulnerable group of people. Since there is virtually
no chance of this happening, it is important for us as
individuals to stand up for the gun rights of the mentally ill.
Tackling the issue of mental illness and guns is not nearly as
politically dangerous as gun rights groups think. On the
contrary, there are so many people in the United States that
could potentially be classified as "mentally ill" by the state
that it is politically dangerous for these groups to not stand
up for them. As much as 20% of the adult population in the
United States could be classified as having a mental illness in
2011 alone! With that many people at risk of being disarmed, (if
they haven’t been so already), the gun rights groups are just
plain crazy not to stand up for them.
In addition, the entire case for disarming the mentally ill is
based more upon fear and misconceptions rather than rational
argument. In the first place, there is the gigantic problem of
deciding who is to be considered mentally ill. Most people
probably have in mind disarming delusional schizophrenics
walking around in bunny slippers, an image the gun control crowd
has fostered, but mental illness is a much broader concept than
that.
For example, if a medical student suffers a panic attack due to
stress and is institutionalized for a day or two, does that mean
that she is mentally ill and should be disarmed? If so, for how
long will she lose her right to bear arms, and who is to decide
if and when she is to recover her ability to defend herself? Or,
what about the estimated 11% of Americans who are taking
antidepressants? Are these people also mentally ill, and will
they be disarmed as well? What if a person took antidepressants
years ago, but has since stopped taking them? Is he mentally
ill, and will he be disarmed? Or, even more dangerous, what if a
prescription-happy doctor tells you to take antidepressants, but
you don’t want them and don’t even take them? Would you still be
classified as having been diagnosed with mental illness and lose
your right to own guns? These are just a few of the
fantastically insidious implications of disarming the mentally
ill even more than they already have been.
The implications of disarming the mentally ill go far beyond
merely the civilian population, because our armed services are
absolutely chock filled with people who could and probably would
be classified as mentally ill. The astounding rate at which
soldiers are killing themselves testifies to this fact, as does
the astounding 110,000 soldiers who are taking powerful
antidepressant, sedative and antipsychotic medications. Are
these people to be disarmed as well? If so, where would that
leave our military? What about when these soldiers return home
with emotional and other mental problems, are we going to add
insult to injury and tell them that we are going to disarm them
as well? Thanks for sacrificing your mental health, soldier,
your reward is to lose your right to own guns.
These are just some of the practical implications that would
flow from completely disarming the mentally ill in this country,
but there are still other ethical problems that would flow from
it as well. Many of the more seriously mentally ill persons in
this country are incapable of holding down remunerative work,
and many thus live in poorer parts of the cities in this country
that are far from safe. To disarm these people, many of whom are
already easy targets of crime, is to make them even more
vulnerable for exploitation and injury. To disarm these people
completely would be to broadcast from the rooftops to the
criminals of this country that it was open season on the
mentally ill. Want an easy mark that you know is not armed, just
pick out the nearest mentally ill person!
Also bear in mind that, because there are so very many people in
this country who can be classified as mentally ill, and current
laws for restricting their gun rights are ineffective, there are
currently millions upon millions of mentally ill people with
guns in America. This fact alone should alert us to the fact
that mentally ill people are overwhelmingly capable of owning
guns responsibly, just like people without mental illness. These
millions of responsible mentally ill are completely overlooked,
as if it is impossible for a mentally ill person to refrain from
shooting people, which is just plain silly.
The firearm is the great equalizer for weak and vulnerable
people, like the mentally ill and the elderly (many of whom are
depressed, and could thus also be classified as mentally ill!).
To take away a weak or vulnerable person’s right to defend
himself is self-righteous, cowardly, and wrong. All people have
the right to defend themselves against aggression. This is just
as true of the mentally ill as it is of anyone else. Getting
sick, whether physically or mentally, should not mean that you
lose your right to defend yourself.
If this doesn’t convince you, remember that there has been a
long tradition in the United States of using psychology as a
weapon against the weak and vulnerable. If the mentally ill are
disarmed today, you could easily find yourself diagnosed as
mentally ill tomorrow. When that happens, you will wish that you
had stood up for the rights of the weakest among us.
HTML http://lewrockwell.com/crovelli/crovelli74.1.html
HTML http://lewrockwell.com/crovelli/crovelli74.1.html
#Post#: 4427--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ελεύθερη
Οπλοφορία
ΚΑΙ για τους
ΚΑΘΥΣΤΕΡΗΜΕΝΟΥ
DIR By: mistermax
Date: December 27, 2012, 5:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
στην
ελλαδαρα
εχει και ο
σκατηδιαρης,
πολυ
μπροστα σε
σχεση με τις
ηπα...
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1