Friend fired for going to gun show. 99.7% Psycholgists possibly anti-gun

[wacki]

What is the best way to fish out anti-gunners without letting them know what you are trying to do?


Normally I'm pretty direct people. Heck I even told my current girlfriend on our first date that I do a lot of skeet and trap and if she had a problem with that we might as well call it a night. However, there are situations where it's best to be discrete about things. One often has to watch their tongue when talking to coworkers, business partners and of course your boss. I actually know somebody (more of an acquaintance but that word wouldn't fit in the title) that was let go when he told a coworker that he was going to the Indy 1500 gun show with his brother. That was his first and it will likely be his last gun show. Everyone thought his performance was fine and there were even a couple of anti-gunners that were bothered by the fact that he was let go. He was biotech contract worker that didn't get his contract renewed. They also told him not to show up his last week of his ongoing contract. They still paid him, they just didn't want him entering the building.

In certain fields (e.g. academia, journalism, etc) there's an extreme anti-gun bias. One very troubling NYT's article points out a "statistically impossible lack of diversity" among the political views of psychologists. Although that article didn't mention guns, it did say that only 3 out of a 1,000 psychologists were conservative. I know there are plenty of pro-gun liberals (e.g. President JFK), but I don't think it's that much of a stretch to assume that anti-gunners exist at a "statistically impossible" frequency among psychologists as well.

Why does this matter? Unfortunately anyone that has ever had any kind of anti-depressants, ADD treatment or other pharmaceutical prescribed to them in their life time (which is probably a majority of Americans by now) has to jump through extra hoops and get the person who treated them to sign off on the application permit. For example, see the additional questions section of the Indiana Application. I actually feel sorry for the up and coming generation. Doctors prescribe anti-depressants like it's water and it seems like pretty much every child with a worried mother can get diagnosed with ADD. Just image what these people have to go through, they literally have to go to someone who is almost certainly anti-gun and then say "hey can you sign off on this gun permit application?".

So, given what happened to someone working in my field and the current state of the medical community & the respective gun laws, how would you go about discovering people's views on guns without letting them know you are pro-gun?

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

He was just a contract worker that didn't get his contract renewed. They also told him not to show up his last week on the job. They still paid him, they just didn't want him entering the building.

Why would this have anything to do with his attending a gun show? It's not uncommon for contracts to not be renewed, likewise, it's not uncommon to not have employees (particularly contract employees) come in their final few days or week. I guess it has less to do with his attending a gun show and more of a history of contract employees helping themselves to the company's assets just before they leave.

 

[DammitBoy]

Have you ever been treated for psychiatric health care or an emotional or mental illness?

So, if you and your spouse saw a marriage councilor - that might be grounds for denial?

Thank god I don't live in a fascist state!

 

[jerkface11]

Telling them he was going to the gunshow got him a week of pay without work? Nice.

 

[Tim the student]

So, how do you know that he didn't have his contract renewed because he went to a gun show?

 

[buck460XVR]

Telling them he was going to the gunshow got him a week of pay without work? Nice.

Wouldn't work for me.

If I told my boss I was goin' to a gun show, he'd probably want to come along.

I, like the others, figure there is more to this story than we know.

 

[wacki]

So, how do you know that he didn't have his contract renewed because he went to a gun show?

Call it common knowledge? Contract positions in biotech companies are only as shaky as the product line. His product line was not hurting. His departure was felt by many and given everything else that was going on the gun show explanation was the only thing that made sense. On Monday I can get more concrete information but for the sake of argument lets just assume what everyone at the company thinks is true is actually true.

Besides, what happened to my acquaintance is a minor issue compared to the possibility of childhood prescription Prozac / Ritalin making your CCW application complicated. The point of the thread is to motivate people to find or talk about ways of discretely identifying the hard core anti-gunners.

 

[Zoogster]

In certain fields (e.g. academia, journalism, etc) there's an extreme anti-gun bias. One very troubling NYT's article points out a "statistically impossible lack of diversity" among the political views of psychologists. Although that article didn't mention guns, it did say that only 3 out of a 1,000 psychologists were conservative. I could be wrong, but I don't think it's that much of a stretch to assume that anti-gunners exist at a "statistically impossible" frequency among psychologists as well.

The profession tends to attract a very very strong percentage of those that would tend to have anti-gun inclinations. The liberal left leaning portion of society.
On top of that look at what they get to listen to regularly, if they were middle of the road originally they will probably come to believe the average person they are in contact with and hence perceived average person in general is better off without a gun.

It certainly can help some families with communication problems. Just as there is also people we could all agree have serious issues and need professional help.

However as someone that has had friends with entire libraries of such books with degrees in the field (popular profession in California) and studied it myself I find the field a bunch of hocus pocus, yet hocus pocus that is well respected professionally and legally.
I understand it and could even apply it, (after obtaining proper credentials based on the same resource material of course) but its still something subjective made to appear scientific.
There is logic in the method, but the framework itself is typically based more on the mind of the individual that creates it or contributes to it, such as Sigmund Freud.
In psychology you would call that self projecting.


Mental illness for example is entirely subjective, based upon a perceived norm that is itself subjective and ever changing.
Yet a normal exists but no person interviewed in depth is "normal".
All have good and bad experiences in childhood, as an adult, some too good, some too bad, all can be credited with creating the definition of a perceived flaw that is an illness.
Just as almost anyone in society with some form of stress, anxiety, depression etc can be medicated or treated for some condition.
Yet medication cannot just be handed out, something must be declared to treat.


Any student studying in the field can use the subjective criteria to diagnose any person with a variety of mental illnesses based on reported or observed matching criteria.
An additional problem is this is a business, so people with a condition to treat are long term customers. While someone merely spoken with, helped through some issue, and sent on their way would be a less financially rewarding customer.
Long term counseling, prescribing and adjusting medication, it is what keeps people in the profession employed.



That is one of the big reasons tying legal authority to the field is so dangerous. It is subjective, and self motivated.
What one may call a healthy trait another can define as fitting a mental illness.
Certainly such authority may help reduce danger in some cases, but at huge cost to liberty overall.

So, if you and your spouse saw a marriage councilor - that might be grounds for denial?

Absolutely.

When used to help it can be good, when used to control it can be very bad.
It is a subjective field. That subjectivity is dangerous when combined with legal authority.
Most people have the traits of a variety of mental illnesses, its just whether the individual doing the diagnosis believes they constitute one or more or not.


The really scary part is a lot of the new legal authority and things likely in the future are in essence retroactive.
Someone felt to have X illness years prior, or displayed Y signs, yet has lived a law abiding life, could suddenly find themselves unable to either own a firearm, or say have a permit to carry.
That record will also be suggestive to any new mental health type professionals of what the person has, directing their discretionary interpretation.
You could get counselling in a state with no such restrictions today, and 5 years from now a law could be passed or a regulation implemented that raises red flags on your ability to get some permit or purchase something.

 

[wacki]

So, if you and your spouse saw a marriage councilor - that might be grounds for denial?

Thank god I don't live in a fascist state!

Mississippi has a mental health clause on their application too (linky). Lucky for you it seems to apply to those that have been committed to a mental health institution or been adjudicated mentally incompetent. I suspect few people in Mississippi have anything to worry about. Although the waiver to search you health history may have the possibility to backfire...

 

[Frozen North]

Bring up a hunting trip you went on, the antis will sneer in disgust. The non antis will share stories with you at a later time.

The hard core antis are almost always opposed to hunting. Hunting does not in any way pigeon hole you as a "gun nut" with an evil high capacity "clip" and a scary black "assault weapon" in your trunk. You know people snap at any time for no reason you know, especially the crazy gun nuts!!

Being a contract worker or a temp is usually shaky, it is best to figure you are toast when the contract is up. If they needed full time permanent help, they would not be bringing in a temp.

 

[Zoogster]

Bring up a hunting trip you went on, the antis will sneer in disgust. The non antis will share stories with you at a later time.

Not exactly.
As someone who loves the outdoors, nature, wildlife, and also eats meat and hunts while living in California I am quite aware of other nature lovers against hunting.
Yet even people you could never convince shooting an innocent animal for recreational enjoyment is a good thing can appreciate shooting a violent threat.


I myself am also entirely conscious of what my actions cause, when I buy meat in a store supporting the typically inhumane lifestyle and treatment of animals born and raised in factory prisons only to be killed for my food after such a dismal life.
Or when I shoot some animal that has lived a great life, ran and jumped and played and had many experiences, for my food.
However most of society completely detached from this reality.
A burger is good, but murdering bambi is horrible.
Yet some of them would still support self defense.

 

[medalguy]

True. I have a friend who is very left leaning-- heck, leaning doesn't come close to it. Anyway he and his wife are very green and feed all the little animals which come calling, that was until they had a very large western diamondback in front of their front door. He recently purchased a very nice Remington 870 from me and went with me to shoot my 1919A4. Let him fire about 200 rounds through it, then he wanted to shoot the Thompson. His wife shot it too, although only a few rounds.

So, liberals can be reasonable too. Just takes a bit of convincing.

 

[merlinfire]

Well, in America you take the good with the bad. Since an employer can let you go for any reason so long as it's not discriminatory (in a protected status) or unlawful. I have let some of the people at my workplace know that I'm a gun nut. Not just hunter, I actually told them I'm a gun nut and let them know I have an AK and some other stuff to make their eyes bulge. But everyone also knows I'm a good guy and not crazy. Course, there are probably some places where that would not have flew.

 

[newfalguy101]

Assuming you are correct and he can PROVE he was "let go" for attending a gunshow on his (presumably ) day off, they will have to explain their rational in court, I would imagine.

On the other hand, if I worked for a company that would fire me for something LEGAL I do on MY TIME, I would treasure the oppurtunity to seek alternative employment while the morons PAY ME to stay away from the final few days of my contract.

 

[Jesse Heywood]

So, if you and your spouse saw a marriage councilor - that might be grounds for denial?

If seeing a marriage counselor is grounds for denial, the majority of those married in religious ceremonies couldn't own guns. Many churches require counseling before marriage.

 

[PotatoJudge]

Your post:

One very troubling NYT's article points out a "statistically impossible lack of diversity" among the political views of psychologists. Although that article didn't mention guns, it did say that only 3 out of a 1,000 psychologists were conservative. I know there are plenty of pro-gun liberals (e.g. President JFK), but I don't think it's that much of a stretch to assume that anti-gunners exist at a "statistically impossible" frequency among psychologists as well.

From the article:

He polled his audience at the San Antonio Convention Center, starting by asking how many considered themselves politically liberal. A sea of hands appeared, and Dr. Haidt estimated that liberals made up 80 percent of the 1,000 psychologists in the ballroom. When he asked for centrists and libertarians, he spotted fewer than three dozen hands. And then, when he asked for conservatives, he counted a grand total of three.

The 3/1,000 number didn't sound right, and looking at the article that's not in any way a legit stat nor did you represent the statement in the article properly. I only point this out because you use it a a shocking statistic to get people fired up and likely not thinking straight.

Having known a ton of of both psychiatrists and psychologists, yes there's a left leaning overall and that 80% may be close, but their stances on firearms are much more complicated than left vs right. As with anybody their view seems to come from a combination of upbringing, personal experiences, and reason as they see it when looking at the world around them. In some instances I've seen leftists that are pro-gun because of their psychologist background and the crazy stuff they see.

There's a huge amount of respect for privacy of medical information from the psych community. My opinion is that anyone that thinks the mass dissemination of mental health information will come from the medical professional is a fool. It'll be the same as with all other health information, a universal system of electronic medical records and government control of and payment for (and they will want to know all about what they're paying for, right?) medical treatments that is most likely to lead to misuse of the information.

I'd also like to point out what an unfair burden this is:

Just image what these people have to go through, they literally have to go to someone who is almost certainly anti-gun and then say "hey can you sign off on this gun permit application?".

I think there could be some agreement on who shouldn't own a gun (schizophrenics, for example though they're often nice people), but to have to sign a bit of paper vouching for someone's safety with a gun is ridiculous. Nobody can know that.

Seems like a good time to get together with your medical professionals and make the case that this system is bad for us all.