Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Sen. Cornyn, With NRA Blessing, Proposes Gun Background Checks
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="YukonGlocker" data-source="post: 2777934" data-attributes="member: 425"><p>You raise some great points. I'll try to address some of them without substantially distracting from the thread topic.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Agreed that it will get us off track in a hurry.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes.</p><p></p><p> </p><p>It depends a great deal on how all this unfolds (or doesn't) over time. </p><p></p><p> </p><p>It's a great question, and one the weighs heavily in these types of decisions. I assure you the majority of psychologists consider this more than one might imagine, although those discussions never make the headlines in mainstream-media. It's really the same dilemma that happens when most any type social change is taking place. </p><p></p><p></p><p>It certainly could be. But if *somebody* is getting the authority to make decisions about mental health, who would you rather it go to? Personally, I'll take a panel of mental health professionals over any other group of people.</p><p> </p><p></p><p>There may be some extreme individuals that pose a danger, but the "profession" does more to protect civil liberties than nearly any other one.</p><p></p><p></p><p>It has been a tool for statists for a *long* time, and still is. But that's the fringe of the profession...the vast majority are not. </p><p></p><p></p><p>None of the above. Psychological societies don't operate in this fashion because of the complexity involved in understanding such phenomena.</p><p> </p><p></p><p>Psychology doesn't assume there is any truth. And, although most movies, tv, and mainstream-media paint a very different picture of psychology; psychology starts with science first. This isn't to say "bad" science isn't conducted in psychology, because every field of science has its share of bad science; however, psychology has been *the* front runner (out of all scientific domains) in the race to eliminate bad science from within. Also, much of psychology focuses on how non-science, politics, and economics are the source of immense problems in our society...so those areas have no bigger critics than from psychology. Again, you can find outliers that are in it for the money and politics, but the vast majority are not.</p><p></p><p></p><p>One major goal of social science is to predict human behavior, and we can do a surprisingly good job at prediction with many behaviors (and surprisingly bad job with others). But I'm not sure where this fits in with the mental health and guns issue.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I can't comment on this without learning more about it. Where can I read more about it? </p><p></p><p></p><p>It doesn't place any stress or pressure on me because this isn't my worry, nor question. Again, you don't have to convince me. I do, however, know that this is the dilemma that we (gun rights supporters) will have to battle. This will be a central point of the gun control debate. All the "gun-free zone" rhetoric will get trampled because the majority of gun deaths don't happen in gun-free zones. Gun-free zones are a major focus of gun rights supporters...but nobody else gives a s$hit about them because there's so much killing going on elsewhere. I'm simply trying to point out that this is one issue we should re-frame if we intend be effective in the coming gun control debates.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Actually, many psychologist do just that...restore healthy, loving, and caring relationships in families and communities. If you think this can't be done, you don't know much at all about what psychology is doing. (but to be fair, nobody sees it in movies, tv, or main-stream media...hell, few individuals will openly talk about it)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="YukonGlocker, post: 2777934, member: 425"] You raise some great points. I'll try to address some of them without substantially distracting from the thread topic. Agreed that it will get us off track in a hurry. Yes. It depends a great deal on how all this unfolds (or doesn't) over time. It's a great question, and one the weighs heavily in these types of decisions. I assure you the majority of psychologists consider this more than one might imagine, although those discussions never make the headlines in mainstream-media. It's really the same dilemma that happens when most any type social change is taking place. It certainly could be. But if *somebody* is getting the authority to make decisions about mental health, who would you rather it go to? Personally, I'll take a panel of mental health professionals over any other group of people. There may be some extreme individuals that pose a danger, but the "profession" does more to protect civil liberties than nearly any other one. It has been a tool for statists for a *long* time, and still is. But that's the fringe of the profession...the vast majority are not. None of the above. Psychological societies don't operate in this fashion because of the complexity involved in understanding such phenomena. Psychology doesn't assume there is any truth. And, although most movies, tv, and mainstream-media paint a very different picture of psychology; psychology starts with science first. This isn't to say "bad" science isn't conducted in psychology, because every field of science has its share of bad science; however, psychology has been *the* front runner (out of all scientific domains) in the race to eliminate bad science from within. Also, much of psychology focuses on how non-science, politics, and economics are the source of immense problems in our society...so those areas have no bigger critics than from psychology. Again, you can find outliers that are in it for the money and politics, but the vast majority are not. One major goal of social science is to predict human behavior, and we can do a surprisingly good job at prediction with many behaviors (and surprisingly bad job with others). But I'm not sure where this fits in with the mental health and guns issue. I can't comment on this without learning more about it. Where can I read more about it? It doesn't place any stress or pressure on me because this isn't my worry, nor question. Again, you don't have to convince me. I do, however, know that this is the dilemma that we (gun rights supporters) will have to battle. This will be a central point of the gun control debate. All the "gun-free zone" rhetoric will get trampled because the majority of gun deaths don't happen in gun-free zones. Gun-free zones are a major focus of gun rights supporters...but nobody else gives a s$hit about them because there's so much killing going on elsewhere. I'm simply trying to point out that this is one issue we should re-frame if we intend be effective in the coming gun control debates. Actually, many psychologist do just that...restore healthy, loving, and caring relationships in families and communities. If you think this can't be done, you don't know much at all about what psychology is doing. (but to be fair, nobody sees it in movies, tv, or main-stream media...hell, few individuals will openly talk about it) [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Sen. Cornyn, With NRA Blessing, Proposes Gun Background Checks
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom