View Single Post
Old January 4, 2013, 12:48 PM   #81
Glenn E. Meyer
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 18,721
The overuse of psychiatric terms could well be a basis to denying gun ownership. So do we want to go there?

In other threads, we've discussed how the truly dangerous on mental illness grounds might be prevented from committing a rampage. However, people have glibbly thrown around the ideas that if you have a mental illness or or whatever, you should be banned.

Well, if you bite your nails or pull off your eyebrows, that could be an a form of OCD - they may share common neurophysiology. It might cause you some distress - a diagnositc cue.

So, no guns for you!

We don't want psychiatric based gulags in the USA. In South Africa, opposition to apartheid was classified as not understanding the will of God or being a psychiatric disorder.

Yep, rhetorical flourishes are nice but you know - wanting to own weapons that are quite deadly is probably more vulnerable to nasty rhetoric than not. I hate to say that but that could be the case to folks who haven't given rational thought to the argument.

Why do you need that? You're nuts.
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Being an Academic Shooter
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Page generated in 0.03491 seconds with 7 queries