If you go to Wikipedia and look up the diagnosis of the word Psychosis, it reads as follows:
“Psychosis (from the Greek ψυχή “psyche”, for mind/soul, and -ωσις “-osis”, for abnormal condition) means abnormal condition of the mind, and is a generic psychiatric term for a mental state often described as involving a “loss of contact with reality.”
After reading a recent New York Times editorial about Congressman Gifford’s retirement from Congress, ( 1 ) I see too much evidence indicating that the staff who authored the editorial have indeed lost all contact with reality.
Let me quote them: “Left unstated amid the lawmakers’ celebration of Ms. Giffords’ survival was the abject failure of Congress and President Obama to repair the porous gun control laws that helped enable a mentally disturbed gunman to shoot and kill six and wound Ms. Giffords and 12 others in a matter of seconds last January.”
Several things stand out in just this one paragraph. First, the phrase ” … to repair the porous gun control laws… “. Implicit in this statement is the assumption that at sometime in the past, gun control laws in the US were more strict than they are now, but have been neglected and are now in a state of disarray.
Excuse me? Since the rise of FDR and the establishment of the Federal gun-control culture, each passing decade has witnessed a steady INCREASE in the number of firearm laws and their intrusiveness. Have they forgotten that as recently as 1967 one could buy a gun through the mail? Not any more. Have they forgotten that in the past it was very common for public schools to have shooting clubs on campus and now many states have laws that forbid a firearm within a thousand yards of a school? Have they forgotten that Americans used to be able to buy just about any gun they wanted and now they are banned from doing so? Have they missed the many examples of law abiding citizens arrested on firearms charges for weapons they were already LICENSED to carry? And more to the point, have they missed the much heralded Lautenberg Amendment to Federal Law that has deprived hundreds of thousands of people their Second Amendment rights because of the wild accusations made during a messy divorce .
To suggest that gun control laws have been getting less strict flies in the face of reality. It is patently absurd. Granted, many jurisdictions have been forced to recognize the basic Second Amendment right to keep and bear a firearm. But these jurisdictions are not experiencing “wild west ” shootouts. Just the opposite, it is in those jurisdictions with the most restrictive rules that we are seeing the greatest violence.
Which leads me to my second observation: This statement also implies that gun control laws have ever worked as advertised. Let us consider the case of Great Britain……. the shining example of a nation whose citizen/serfs have been shackled with gun control laws.
A scant 3 weeks BEFORE this editorial was printed, a man in Great Britain, shot and killed four people including himself using a common shotgun and common hunting rifle. And it only took a few seconds. All of the weapons were licensed. None of them were machine guns or “assault rifles “. And the man himself was widely regarded as a quiet and “nice man” who often donated the animals he hunted to friends for food. (2)
All of the gun control laws most heralded by the New York Times Editorial Board were in place when this happened. And it did not make a damn bit of difference.
Let me also note the phrase , ” … porous gun control laws that helped enable a mentally disturbed gunman to shoot and kill..” One has to wonder how the law would define mentally disturbed? Would this include anyone ” feeling blue” ? Would it include someone going through some kind of financial stress? Marital stress? How about some jilted lover? Would this new law that every person who wanted to purchase a firearm go through an FBI background check and psychological evaluation? Would anyone who had ever had a bout of depression , even for a brief period of time, be banned from buying a firearm? And exactly what law would they implement to ensure that someone did not have a change in mental health? Would all gun owners be forced to undergo constant psychological evaluation?
These are not absurd questions to ask.
If someone has lost a connection to reality on one point, can you trust them to be reasonable on any other?
If the New York Times editorial board is anything, it is psychotic……. and their delusion is so entrenched, one should be concerned about the safety of all us around them. Who knows what might make them fly off the handle. And if they refuse to recognize the irrationality of their paranoid need for more gun control, I would suggest they not complain too much if the rest of us first demand each of them undergo psychiatric screening immediately…. and regularly…. for the safety of society at large. We have a right to feel safe too.
This assumes of course that the Editorial Board is being honest about their stated justification for wanting to disarm the American people. Now if I am wrong, and their real desire has a more totalitarian foundation, I would suggest a much more stringent and permanent cure is indicated.
(1 ) Gabby Giffords’s Farewell
New York Times Editorial Page A26 January 27, 2012
( 2 ) Gun laws in spotlight as man kills family with licensed arms
By Jonathan Brown The Independent.com Tuesday, 3 January 2012