PSYCHOLOGISTS AND GUN CONTROL

The attempted assassination of President Donald Trump unleashed the usual calls for gun control by the usual suspects, most of whom base their arguments on appeals to emotion. 

“No one needs an AR-15,” one fellow told me.

“So, if I get this right,” I replied, “according to you, no one should be allowed to own a gun they don’t need?”

“Right!”

“So, if it can be determined that a person doesn’t need something, he should not be allowed to possess it? Like, for example, that Porsche you own?”

“Uh, well, I didn’t mean that,” he said. “I’m talking about AR-15s and guns like that only.”

“Okay, so, if Bob cannot demonstrate that he needs an AR, Bob should not be allowed to have an AR?”

“Uh, I feel like you’re asking me a trick question.”

“I’m only asking questions that follow logically from your statements. So, again, if Bob doesn’t need an AR, he shouldn’t be allowed to have one, right?”

“Uh, okay, yes, that’s right.”

“And who, pray tell, should determine, in your perfect world, what set of circumstances defines need?”

When the fellow did not immediately reply, I suggested, “How about you? Would you feel comfortable making that determination?”

“No. The government should make it.”

“What we call the government is made up of people like you and me. So, again, would you feel comfortable making that determination?”

“Uh, well, uh, let’s just say that at the very least, people with serious mental health issues should not be allowed to own guns of any sort.”

“Okay,” I said, “and who should make that determination…that a person’s mental health problems disqualify him from owning a gun?”

“People in your profession, of course,” he replied.

Indeed, mental health professionals would jump at the opportunity to insert themselves between the People and the Second Amendment, to be the final arbiters of who is mentally healthy enough to own a gun and perhaps even what kind of gun. In the first place, that power would create a new cash flow stream for them. Second, they could refuse certain firearm applications pending the completion of a course of therapy for, say, “unresolved anger issues.” Voila’! Another cash flow! But sarcasm aside, several facts need to be considered:

• Researchers have determined that psychologists, psychiatrists, et cetera, cannot reliably tell when an individual is faking symptoms of mental “illness.” That simply means mental health professionals, as a group, don’t know what they’re doing.
• Because psychological diagnoses are not based on objective criteria, EVERY psychological diagnosis is a MISDIAGNOSIS.
• The concept of “mental illness” has no scientific validity…as in none, nada, zero, zilch. Thoughts and emotions cannot become infected with disease agents and there is zero evidence that craziness in any form is caused by biology.
• Research fails to find that, on average, counseling from a mental health professional concerning problems of living produces better results than doing nothing.
• According to formal surveys, the ratio of liberals to conservatives in the field of psychology is 14-to-1. Said differently, only 7 percent of psychologists are conservatives. Undoubtedly, psychologists are overwhelmingly in favor of draconian restrictions on gun ownership. 
• A peer-reviewed 2022 study published in a prestigious journal “documented high rates of mental-health difficulties (both diagnosed and undiagnosed) among faculty, graduate students, and others affiliated with accredited doctoral and internship programs in clinical, counseling, and school psychology. More than 80 percent of respondents reported a lifetime history mental-health difficulties, and 48 percent reported a diagnosed mental disorder.” Those rates, by the way, are higher than in the general population.

In my opinion, America’s mental health professionals – of which I am one – are selling a pig in a poke. As a rule, they are not qualified to do what the general public thinks they are qualified to do and are in a deep state of denial concerning what they are actually doing (which is more harm than good).

The bottom line is that under no circumstances do Americans want mental health professionals determining who is and is not sufficiently trustworthy to own a firearm.

CODA: Individuals who have been convicted of violent crimes against people or animals, are cognitively or neurologically impaired such that they misinterpret events and the behavior of others (e.g. dementia), do not speak or understand English, or who have made verified threats of bodily harm to others should not be allowed to purchase guns or maintain possession of guns. Those criteria are neither arbitrary nor subjective; therefore, they can be enforced dispassionately. Nor do they violate the Second Amendment.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I am licensed to practice psychology by the North Carolina Psychology Board. (Despite said license, I do not practice psychology. I counsel from a biblical worldview. The Bible is truth. Psychology is not.) As I did in 2016 and 2020, I will vote for Donald Trump this coming November. I own an unspecified number of firearms for the sole purpose of protecting my wife and myself and our Toy Schnauzer Hanna from bad people.