Study Shows Flaw In Science To Fix Us

It is no surprise, at least to those who have any interest in what is going on in our country that there are those who wish to refuse firearms ownership to anyone for any reason. It also should not surprise us that our government jumps on any pseudo-science, and it’s supposed findings. There have been some in psychiatric circles who are saying that there is a connection between mental illness and lone terror attacks.
Really? You had to have a study to determine that there is a connection in what is called mental illness and mass killings and the spread of terror by a person who acts alone? I bet that study was paid for by our tax dollars. It was but; it was conducted by a sociologist, one Ramon Spaaij.
Spaaij has conducted a study for the U.S. state department to determine if there was a connection between “lone-acting” terrorism and mental illness. What he determined was that there was a connection to be made.
This study is hoped to provide law enforcement and intelligent agencies around the world the tools to better discover and thwart terror acts by lone individuals. This type of tool is badly needed as these types of acts are very hard to uncover and stop.
There is a problem that will come with these types of studies. It will tempt many to discriminate against a class of people, based on this understanding. What if a person had a nervous breakdown years ago, such as a Michigan man discovered.
73 year-old Charles Tyler sought to purchase a fire arm and was refuse the right. Not because he had been a violent criminal. Not because he had spent years in and out of mental institutions or made threats against co-workers, his ex-wife, or children. No, the reason that Charles was refused is that back in 1986, he was committed to a mental health facility because he was having a hard time dealing with his divorce. He was there a month.
It is wonderful that the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that this refusal was unconstitutional. Yet, these types of studies and the subsequent backlash can further inhibit Americans from exercising their rights.
What would have Mr. Tyler done had he been assaulted or had to endure a burglary. He would have been left defenseless from his attackers. It should be granted that a firearm does not guarantee protection. His hypothetical attackers may still have overpowered him or worse, but it seems he would have a higher probability of survival with a firearm than without.
As to the understanding of mental health, much could be said. I will touch on the one main problem. It is that psychiatry and sociology ignore or deny the basic problem with man or mankind.
First and foremost, man is a sinner and prone to sin. When faced with a situation that tests his ability to restrain his anger or desire, he will often choose to react in a way that produces what we call irrational behavior, but is really sin.
Many times what we see in mass-murder and terror by lone individuals is nothing more than their sin habits on a large scale. They, having been taught by experience how to handle these situations wrongly fall back on them as modes operandi. Never being told that these actions were displeasing to God or called to repentance, they continue to use them as a means of coping with that problem, when placed in that situation. Calling sin a mental illness is comparable to diagnosing cancer as a cold and treating it like one. It encourages its growth and the patient’s death.
Instead of trying to use excuses for these extreme acts of sin and possible destroy the rights of our fellow citizens, we should call all them to repent.