🇳🇱
@thatguyoverthere @admitsWrongIfProven
Its worse than that... if the consequence of struggling with mental health and seeing a doctor has the consequence of revoking ones rights the end result is people who care about being able to buy a gun will go out of their way not to talk about or seek medical help for their mental illnesses.
The end result is increasing the number of people that get no help with their mental illness and a lot more of the wrong sort of people owning guns.
@robryk @thatguyoverthere @admitsWrongIfProven
While that might aflddress part of the concern it seems a recipie for abuse, especially in a field that is known for quite an abundance of false positives and inconsistency when it comes to diagnosing.
Its basically the equivelant of saying "Get some government agent to talk to you, if you feel suspicious you can just deny them a gun"... i mean if you want to create a standardized test for it maybe, but even then sounds like a recipie for abuse.
@freemo @thatguyoverthere @admitsWrongIfProven there is a natural experiment that shows this. The FAA grounds pilots and controllers who have a medically diagnosed mental health issue. The result is that people in these professions do not seek treatment for their mental health issues because doing so means loosing their job.
@antares @thatguyoverthere @admitsWrongIfProven
It amazes me this needs to be told to antigun folks at all
This is the first good post of yours that I've read.
@freemo @thatguyoverthere @admitsWrongIfProven
Do you think something similar still applies if there's a required and the evaluator explicitly has no access to the candidate's medical history? (Or would that be infeasible enough to be useless?)