Firearms and Psychiatry

Psychiatric Myopia

An article on the Psychiatric Times website shows the narrow-minded myopia with which the medical community views gun ownership.

The referenced article is titled Firearms and Mental Illness, written by Donna M. Norris, MD and Marilyn Price, MD. A good, unbiased psychiatrist might have a field day dissecting their article.

They first bolster support for their idea that "restrictions" on gun ownership extend back to the 18th century. However, back then there were "common sense" rules, like telling Martha not to store the 2 pound keg of black powder near the fireplace and no firearms in the courthouse.

In fact, the first page and a half claims that State and Federal laws require more reporting of "mental illness" histories, but are still lacking. The second page contains three long paragraphs about suicide and firearms. Their most significant fact is 46 people a day committed suicide with a firearm daily in 2005 or 53% of the total. Of course, they don't tell you that a whopping 70.7% of those suicides also involve intoxication with drugs and/or alcohol. It would seem that drugs and alcohol are much more of a problem for depressed people.

As I read this article, I noticed that both early in their article and later, these doctors denied there was a confirmed link between "mental illness" and mass shootings or acts of violence. In the first paragraph, they state:

While violence is often portrayed in the media as related to persons with mental illnesses, there are limited research data to support this idea.

Later, as they turn to the topic of suicide, they make the curious statement that ...

Persons with mental illnesses and/or substance abuse disorders are frequently perceived by the public to be dangerous, and their inclusion in the NICS data bank is controversial.

Apparently the psychiatric field doesn't "perceive" the mentally ill or those with substance abuse as "dangerous". Or they are saying public perception is wrong, I'm not quite sure. I was expecting them to claim that public policy was in error to include the mentally ill in NICS checks. But, there's more of course.

I continued reading and expecting them to discuss how the entire handling of mental illness and firearms ownership has been overplayed or overblown. Especially when they said ...

the vast majority of violent events are not perpetrated by persons with mental illness. However, there is a well-documented correlation of violence for individuals with substance abuse disorders. Thus, it is unclear whether a database of mentally ill persons is a deterrent.

Admittedly, if we take every violent act in the country, we might agree. However, it is the repeated violent acts of rapists and mass murderers that get our attention.

But these doctors ignore evidence as plain as their noses. In the first few postal shootings in the 80's, three of the four suspects were being "treated" for depression and other mental disorders. The Columbine killers had been taking psychiatric drugs. The Virgina Tech shooter is another example. In other shootings we have heard the person was "in therapy" or had "stopped taking their medications".

The article even touched on Federal requirements for a "relief from disabilities". In theory, this allows you to get your 2A rights back when you're put onto the NICS prohibited list. While this is true, we've also seen how Congress can de-fund such programs, which allows them to claim there is "a process", with no one to administer it.

Their "conclusion" is much like today's practice of psychiatry in that it falls far short of being effective. In short, it's nothing more than a very general warning for doctors to know what the state laws require and that attesting to a patient's "cure" ...

may impose potential legal liability for a patient’s future acts.

So, instead of examining the real issues with modern psychiatry, the laws and public perceptions, we get an article that appears to support more restrictions, calls for more reporting of "mental illness" interventions and a warning that doctors may face liability for releasing a patient from a "prohbited person" status.

First, let me say that true mental illness affects a great many people. I'm not talking about those with a fetish for washing their hands or always lining up eating utensils perfectly, but those who are mentally ill and dangerous to themselves or others. These folks need and deserve treatment. Their rights should be carefully guarded and the opinions of their doctors challenged.

Next, if you are ever in a situation where authorities are called and want you to get a "psychiatric examination", never force them into making it an involuntary commitment. Not even for one of those 24 hour holds in the county hospital. Once it is involuntary, it gets reported. This is not always the case for voluntary check-ins. An involuntary stay might effect your ability to purchase firearms in the future.

Doctors want to reduce the stigma associated with the term "mental illness" so that people are less afraid to seek help. However, at the same time, they still advocate having the ability for a doctor to deprive a free man of his rights with just a signature. And once that is done, it can be frightfully difficult and expensive to reverse it.

We should re-examine whether mandatory reporting is necessary or even desireable if we want more people to seek help. Unfortunately, from what I'm hearing, most so-called psychiatrists are nothing more than dispensers of happy-pills.

Many people have episodes of depression that are perfectly normal. The loss of a loved one, family breakups, financial losses, etc. Sometimes the emotions are severe enough to warrant seeking help. Other times folks just need some advice on keeping their sense of perspective.

If the medical community is serious about expanding mental health care services, they will re-examine their prejudices against firearms ownership. In addition, they will work with legislatures to ensure people can be released from prohibitions once they have passed through a crisis point. But I won't hold my breath for these changes. Not when so many psychiatrists themselves have a prejudice against firearms.

Have something to say? Want to disagree?
Send comments to: editor@handgunclub.com