Child Psychology

» pink101 - Not So Sure Of That

.
It's not that we're more bloodthirsty or violent. It's that weapons like handguns and long guns (semiautomatics) are more accessible to people now than they were prior to 1966.
.
I'm not so sure of that, Laurie.
.
There is a "monkey see, monkey do" aspect of human nature. As a psychologist you know that.
.
We live in violent times. In the United States, the very group of people that claims the high mark of morality--the Christian Right--promotes the violence in the Middle East almost as though it is God's desire for humanity that such events occur. We see violence on the tube and see, read, and hear about it from the media. It's a way of life and we settle our differences with our "enemies" through violence--bombing them to hell and back so they can bomb us to hell and back and on and on ad naseum.
.
Violence begets violence.
.
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion

» Laurie Pawlik-Kienlen - Not So Sure Of That

In response to Not So Sure Of That posted by pink101:

The day I posted this article, I heard a psychologist say that the shooting had nothing to do with the media, availability of guns, or increased violence. She said this guy was a paranoid schizophrenic, and THAT'S the reason he went off like that. It's not about society or any of the other reasons people like to cite!
-
I don't think the answer is as simple as paranoid schizophrenia.
-
We've been bloodthirsty since caveman days, haven't we? Hasn't there always been killings, war, bloodshed, and human atrocities?

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion

» pink101 - Not So Sure Of That

In response to Not So Sure Of That posted by LauriePK:
.
Paranoid schizophrenics need scripts from which to carry out their delusions.
.
I don't see how anyone could say that what we are exposed to has nothing to do with how we act out.
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion

» pink101 - Not So Sure Of That

In response to Not So Sure Of That posted by pink101:
.
According to another participant here, the governor of Virginia has closed the loop hole that allowed persons with mental health histories to easily buy guns.
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion

» Laurie Pawlik-Kienlen - Not So Sure Of That

In response to Not So Sure Of That posted by pink101:

That seems like it should be obvious! But is it discriminatory? And which mental health issues are problematic? Depression? Schizophrenia? Seasonal affective disorder? There must be some parameters on it, I would think.

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion

» pink101 - Not So Sure Of That

In response to Not So Sure Of That posted by LauriePK:
.
Perhaps it is discriminatory; but, our Supreme Court made a decision earlier about Clear and Present Dangers and we've had too many school shootings by people of questionable mental health.
.
I almost made a professional career of being a sociologist. In a way, I wish I would have done that. They are the ones who could figure these things out for us. But, big business and big government are buying them all up. So we have to figure them out for our own self. Do you know any good sociologists. Symbolics?
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion

» Laurie Pawlik-Kienlen - Not So Sure Of That

In response to Not So Sure Of That posted by pink101:

Hmm....don't know any sociologists at all, much less good ones! I did back in university, but when you're not in that sort of culture, you don't really run into them. I don't think. I don't, anyway.
-
I totally understand about not allowing people with mental health issues to buy guns; I'm just SO curious about where they draw the line! What's really wacko (sorry, I mean a threat) and what's not?
-
What was your career, pink? And why'd you choose Pink101 as a handle?

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion

» redback - Nero fiddles

In response to Not So Sure Of That posted by LauriePK:

Schizophrenia Awareness Week is coming up shortly here. And representatives from the police & ambulance among others will be speaking at the full day 'symposium' in Sydney. I'm sure this topic will come up informally or otherwise. I always take the opportunity to book into a motel a short walk away. A cuppla days later is a Parliamentary luncheon which I also attend. so, that and several other things makes May a VERY busy month for me.

Prevention or early intervention requires a program approach...not trying to second guess any individual's mental health problems. It needs us also to stop looking for 'wackos' to be avoided at all costs and to instead look to our friends, workmates, family members who may need your support and help. I have to wonder at a uni environment where they talk of a loner room mate who doesn't speak to them for months. Among that crowd, I see some ignorant or uncaring or gutless people who feed the very thing they protest against.

By program approach, I'm talking about things like simply having no guns at no uni. Whenever there is road rage, domestic violence, gang activity, and every other incident capable of police intervention, take statements relating to gun ownership and arrange inspections etc etc. When you apply for certain jobs (eg with kids?) where some psych assessment is undertaken, be required to disclose your gun ownership. Why not...it's something to be proud of, no? Or adopt the Aussie model.

And lets not kid ourselves. This is not about treated schizophrenia let alone being solely about schizophrenia. 20% of us are likely to suffer some mental health problem at any one time. There may be an impossibly short time frame between onset and disaster. The fellow sitting next to you on the bus?

Imagine if you had schizophrenia with all its insecurities and terrors. Where YOU are more likely to be bashed than do the bashing. And to believe everyone looking at you suspected you're likely to be violent?

Given the assumption there is a 500%(?) gun ownership in the USA (ie multiple guns included) maybe psychiatrists and priests should have a duty of disclosure. But tis all pie in the sky. The next massacre will inevitably sadden us too!

-- posted by redback

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion

» Laurie Pawlik-Kienlen - Nero fiddles

In response to Nero fiddles posted by redback:

Welcome back, Redback!
-
What's the Aussie model of which you speak? Is it like the Brits, who don't carry guns at all?

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion

» redback - Nero fiddles

In response to Nero fiddles posted by LauriePK:

"Welcome back, Redback!"
I have been wandering through, you know.

There has to be legitimate requirements that are tested. To own a gun (or rifle) which is routinely NOT needed by civilians, you join a gun club and must attend a practice activity at least 4 times a year, not just a club visit. They can lose their club licence if they are caught doing what they did for a neighbour ie signing off one visit as 2 practices. He even stuffed that up and his licence expired in April. His guns will be confiscated unless he wins an appeal. As a JP, I know his reasons are false so can't help him. Another neighbour had serious depressive symptoms and his club refused to renew his membership. It gave him an activity that distracted him, he said. I'm talking him through it.

Membership is conditional on the police permit...can't have one without the other. Other weapons such as rifles may be needed for pest control on farms etc so a purpose has to be declared. A reason such as "I am American" has no defined purpose.

But we had the world's largest amnesty & gun buyback and tis easier to report any behaviour inconsistent with legal gun ownership. Of course, there is a whole range of prohibited weaponry that would decimate the stocks held in private hands in the USA, if applied there.

Of course there are breaches.

-- posted by redback

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion