Philosophy Now Forum

Unfortunately, after the fact seems to mean, after people get murdered.

That's exactly what it means.

If I understand correctly, I believe people close to the perpetrators saw signs and didn't say anything or else alerted authorities and nothing was done.

Hmmm...

The FBI knew in advance the Pulse Nightclub shooter (Omar Mateen) and were tipped off by the local sheriff. The FBI knew in advance the San Bernardino Terrorists (Tashfeen Malik). The FBI knew in advance the Boston Marathon Bombers (the Tsarnaev brothers) tipped off by Russians. The FBI knew in advance the Garland, Texas, shooters (Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi). The FBI knew in advance of the Parkland High School shooter (Nikolas Cruz). The FBI knew in advance of the Fort Hood shooter (Nidal Hasan); and now the FBI knew in advance of Ahmad al-Aliwi Alissa.

These days you could get a scientific consensus, peer-reviewed, bonafide and certified, that Trump voters are mentally ill with impaired judgment and should not have weapons.

Doesn't matter if it's true or not, and of course it's not.

Some ethical whore would put it together for the right price.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Mar 24, 2021 2:39 am If a person is unstable mentally, say with bipolar disorder or depression, should they be denied access to firearms?

Is this a rhetorical question?

Or, you really do not yet know the answer to this question of yours?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Mar 24, 2021 2:39 am It seems like we've had a few mentally unstable people go on shooting sprees recently in the US.

What do you mean by 'recently', and what do you mean by 'a few'?

Some, outsiders, are saying that this has been going on for far to long now, and by far to many.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Mar 24, 2021 2:39 am Would it help to have mandatory background checks on people to make sure they don't have a mental illness?

Could a far more accurate answer be given if the question was; 'Would it hurt to have mandatory background checks on people to make sure they don't have a mental illness?'

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Mar 24, 2021 2:39 am What about mandatory psychological testing before the purchase of any gun to prove that a person is not mentally unstable?

What about providing an actual valid reason for just wanting to own a gun, in the years when this was written, instead of having a psychological test, on one particular day?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Mar 24, 2021 1:48 pm Federal law in the US already prohibits gun sales to people with a history of mental illness.

But EVERY adult human being in that country has some form of mental illness. So that law is not working out to well, for the people of that country. As has been OBVIOUSLY evidenced AND proven all to well.

DPMartin wrote: ↑Wed Mar 24, 2021 4:38 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Mar 24, 2021 3:49 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Mar 24, 2021 2:39 am What about mandatory psychological testing before the purchase of any gun to prove that a person is not mentally unstable?

That sounds like a good idea.

A great number of the human population is mentally unstable, and it doesn't make sense to hand them weapons and hope they can "hold it together".

Upholding/supporting their supposed "rights" to own weapons is not upholding/supporting other's "rights" to live. How does that even make sense?

if they want to take out groups of people there's more than one way to do that. guns aren't mandatory for taking out thy neighbor, its media friendly for 2nd amendment controversy.

Just out of curiosity, WHY do some of 'you', adult human beings, think that just because something has been written down, that it is then somehow GOSPEL?

(Although I already KNOW the answer, I am just curious to see if any one else does as well.)

Yes, the mentally ill should certainly be restricted from owning guns, but what about the mentally disordered? Testing will not pick up many of those with personality disorders, such as psychopathy, and it's more likely to be these people who kill than the mentally ill. The reality is that although some restrictions could be put in place to help promote responsible ownership, there is nothing to guarantee the prevention of dangerous and irresponsible people from getting hold of them, other than the abolition of all firearms.

Veganman wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 12:33 pm Yes, the mentally ill should certainly be restricted from owning guns, but what about the mentally disordered? Testing will not pick up many of those with personality disorders, such as psychopathy, and it's more likely to be these people who kill than the mentally ill. The reality is that although some restrictions could be put in place to help promote responsible ownership, there is nothing to guarantee the prevention of dangerous and irresponsible people from getting hold of them, other than the abolition of all firearms.

Yeah. I remember seeing a study a while back connecting psychopathy with people in high corporate positions, CEOs etc. Apparently, the cutthroat nature of big business supposedly favors the psychopathic--was the argument being made. I've been exposed to working in big business a few times and it does seem to put one in absurd situations. I don't know.

Yes Gary, I guess you can say that psychopaths can either be successful or unsuccessful, the latter more likely to turn to crime, although that would depend upon your definition of crime! Lol. If I remember correctly, about 2% of Americans would meet the criteria for psychopathy, in other words 2% are quite capable of killing someone. However, it doesn't end there as there's also many other types of personality disorders that could enable someone to kill, such as narcissism, antisocial personality and a variety of schizoid and schizotypal people, most of whom would not be diagnosed with a mental illness. So, add this lot together, including some of the mentally ill, the undiagnosed for example, and you have a lot of potentially very dangerous people who have access to firearms.

Psychopathy IS a mental disorder per the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA), which is the gold standard diagnostic tool for mental illnesses in one of the largest and most insane populations in the world. There’s a whole chapter on personality.

Abnormal behavior is a manifestation of abnormality. Crazy behavior is a manifestation of crazy. Quit separating mental illnesses from mental illness. Quit referring to mental illnesses as not affecting thinking, logic or decision making unless you can cite them.

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 3:23 pm Psychopathy IS a mental disorder per the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA), which is the gold standard diagnostic tool for mental illnesses in one of the largest and most insane populations in the world. There’s a whole chapter on personality.

Abnormal behavior is a manifestation of abnormality. Crazy behavior is a manifestation of crazy. Quit separating mental illnesses from mental illness. Quit referring to mental illnesses as not affecting thinking, logic or decision making unless you can cite them.

Tautologies grounded in connotation, not denotation. What is a "disorder" and why?

Lets even suppose that "psychopathy" is a thing - there's evidence that correlates that which we call "psychopathy" with different brain structure, so it's not just psychological, it's physical.

Relative to what notion of "order" is a different brain structure a "disorder" and why? This just seems like a bias against neurodiversity.

Psychiatric illnesses are not psychological disorders. Psychiatric illnesses are related to physical changes in the functionality of neurons. Mental illness does in no way oppose neuro diversity. Psychopathy, or psychopathology, should be understood as a physical thing.

“Disorder” is not a term used in the legislation discussed here. Various members, including me, have used “disorder” or “disease” in place of the term, “illness”, used by the Senate. I am happy with the use of any of these synonyms to describe the same thing.

If “disorder,” according to its connotation, is going to be used to mean something other than, or milder than, illness, then we are not discussing the linked article nor the Canadian Senate’s topic of focus.

But no one who has an eye on the OP has suggested that persons with something milder than mental illness be restricted from gun ownership.

Perhaps the concept "mentally unstable" should not be conflated with the concept of "mentally ill".

Plenty of mentally ill people are very stable - given a combination of right medication and right lifestyle.

And plenty of people who would never be diagnosed with any mental disorder are unstable maniacs.

Cheers,
Grandma