Mass Shooting Hysteria Pt 3: Red Flags, Psychologists, & Liberty Restrictions

In part one of this series, we reviewed the politicizing blame and psychological motivations for mass shooting. Part two disproved correlation between violence with gun proliferation. In this article, we will investigate the visceral reaction of the American Psychological Association to Trump’s red flag law proposal and implications of gun restrictions.

We already restrict rights

Are gun restrictions constitutional? The authority on that point – the Supreme Court – says “yes.” We should recall that the US government already has myriad restrictions on all rights. While we enjoy a level of civil liberty that dwarves most other nations, we have agreed to balance the welfare of bystanders against abuses of liberty. How do we reconcile the case where my freedom of speech infringes upon your freedom of association (libel, slander)? Restrictions balance conflicts of liberty.

Here are just some of those restrictions:

Freedom of speech

  • Inciting imminent lawless action
  • False statements – libel, slander, negligent falsehoods incurring civil liability, and some false factual connotations
  • Obscenity – determined via the Miller Test
  • Child pornography
  • Fighting words – Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire (1942)
  • Intellectual property (trademarks, copyrights)
  • False advertising
  • Capacity of government in education, broadcast, employment, and subsidy

Freedom of the Press

  • Espionage, sedition, disclosure of classified information
  • Unsourced defamation of the US government and military (restricted whistleblower protections)
  • Inherited restrictions on free speech

Free Exercise of Religion

Weapon Possession and Use

  • Convicted felons
  • Some domestic violence convicts
  • Mentally ill or psychiatric institution patients by court ruling
  • Illegal immigrants and non-immigrant visa residents
  • Illegal drug users
  • Dishonorably discharged military
  • Bump stock devices & fully automatic guns (machine guns)
  • Concealed and open carry of guns (local restrictions vary)
  • Sensitive places – schools, government buildings, courts, public transit, airports, polling stations
  • Sales – background checks, record of sales, reporting sales of multiple guns to one person

We could go on to other civil rights, but you get the point. Proper restrictions are only justified by conflicts of liberty. That is where gun control activists fail miserably. They do not even speak of overall violence in nations throughout history in relation to disarmament. We corrected them in the last article.

Mental Illness Restrictions Already Exist

If there are already restrictions on gun ownership for mental illness then how do shootings by killers with abnormal psychology occur? Apparently it is shocking to idealists that the laws they dream up and write on paper are not always enforceable, and even have deleterious unstated consequences. We have speed limits posted everywhere on the road. Do people ever get away with speeding? We have Byzantine tax codes. Do people ever get away with unjustified write-offs?

For gun control, a court ruling of mental illness is required. There are many undiagnosed mentally ill people. There are many mentally ill people who are protected by social justice advocates. They assert that community-based therapy is the only answer. They treat the mentally ill like victims instead of antagonists, preferring that they roam about in communities, face no consequence for aggression, and suckle tax dollars by the billions to finance an army of over one million psychologists, counselors, social workers, and pharmaceutical lobotomies.

Just because a disingenuous politician passes a law does not mean it is enforceable. It may be enforceable easily. It may be rarely enforceable. It may have unstated consequences that are even more negative than having no law at all. Many gun laws are exactly that – rarely enforceable, and abusing innocent people who have nothing to do with the intent of the law.

We can’t even get illegal immigrants to show up at immigration court. How do we expect to confiscate their illegal weapons? What magical words in legal code, will make that happen in reality? We can minimize access by requiring background checks at dealerships, but those are circumvented after the fact.

We can make “gun free zones” which are effectively advertisements to killers: “you will not face resistance by law abiding citizens if you would like to commit your crime here.” A person determined to kill or do armed robbery is not concerned with violating a gun free zone.

The APA’s Autoimmune Reaction to Facts on Violent Crime

The American Psychological Association (APA) presented the most fallacious and unjustified summation of leftwing misdirection on gun control. While it is true that not all mental health patients are violent, it is also true that nearly all mass killers have abnormal psychology that demands clinical attention.

The CEO of APA, in citing a fallacious CNN analysis, achieved agenda driven goals for the “caring industry,” as a leader of said industry. He protects the current paradigm of community-based social and psychological intervention, including the drugging of patients set free in open communities.

He detracts from the criminal justice intervention for the victims of abusive mental health patients. He obfuscates that the current paradigm of letting abusive mental health patients roam about with piles of pills in their hands creates victims on a daily basis behind closed doors. Most people who are victims of aggression from abnormal pscyhology lack the knowledge to even discern that they are being abused by a person with Paranoid Personality Disorder or Narcissistic Personality Disorder, for instance. Deinstitutionalization is still alive and well in the industrial preferences for the caring industry.

Of course as we have demonstrated in previous articles, criminologists, national security analysts, and other psychologists disprove the claims of APA’s CEO. The business and ideological motives of the caring industry leaders drive their misinformation.

As intelligent individuals, it would be completely reasonable for them to admit that only a subset of mental health patients abuse others with physical, relational, and psychological aggression (including mass killing). At the same time they would admit that nearly all mass killers were driven by abnormal psychology. They certainly enjoy asserting this fact when their PhDs are hired to psychoanalyze the mass killers and tyrants of history.

It is difficult to imagine what drives the fallacious response of APA CEO besides his duty to his industry to protect its business model and current ideological paradigm. The historical, rational, and empirical record does not support his assertions.

Red Flags, Defiant Psychologists

While the first article in this series was vague in its objective appraisal of Trump’s response (both praise and criticism), the fact is this: red flags of a sort are unconstitutional. If a person can snitch on a random citizen, and that hearsay is the basis of a gun grab, the person’s natural right to self-defense has been violated.

We are guilty until proven innocent in America. If there is hard evidence that will withstand a court order to disarm a citizen, it must be based on these concepts cited. If it is that important to the courts, they can review hard evidence and specific criteria. But who would define such criteria fairly?

We need the APA and the caring industry to cooperate with us to determine which patients pose serious violent threats. In the case of the recent socialist democrat Dayton shooter, and the ethnonationalist El Paso shooter, we had those indicators of violence. If publishing a kill list of specific people, threatening to rape women, and persistently justifying collective punishment and violence for socialism is “normal psychology,” I think every health insurer, Medicaid, and Medicare should defund psychologists in whole, since they contradict themselves depending on the interest at hand.

Rather than spreading fear of prejudice against mental health patients, leaders in the caring industry must get a hold of their irrational maternalism for patients, and integrate their body of knowledge with criminologists, national security experts in martial science, and constitutional scholars. So long as they prioritize their cash flow in the form of their patients, rather than the daily abused victims of mental health patients, we will not get anywhere.

The malfeasance and insubordination of the caring industry leaders is the stubborn blockage to progress in mitigation of violence – gun or otherwise. Mental health patients are not tragic victims standing on a pedestal above us all, yearning for our compassion. They create victims of relational, psychological, and physical aggression every single day. While we should have compassion for mental health patients, and while not all of them perpetrate these aggressions, we have to prioritize the innocent bystander above all.

It’s a shame that the APA and leftwing activists refuse to make that prioritization for some of the most tragic victims of all – the innocent bystanders slaughtered in cold blood by people with a history of abnormal pscyhology and violent ideation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s