Intro:
This could easily be a case-study for an abnormal psych class that shows off
paranoid personality disorder. I will write it as a mini-paper which will follow what I did, the responses gained, my interpretation of the responses, a brief discussion with propositions that may be operationalized later, and I will conclude with some useful future directions in which research on the subject of PPD and gun-ownership might move.
Data collection:
A number of questions that would lead to responses that are obviously paranoid were asked. When the subject tried to divert I asked further probing questions. Upon lashing out with total non sequiturs I terminated the interview and conducted the case study given the limited data provided. Despite this a rich interview set was obtained and some tentative propositions for future research were established.
Analysis:
Cat-With-Pulled-Tail said:
Yeah lets make it a crime to call things in.
Folks, What we can see here is how the a mind turns simple questions into a pretext for anger and aggression. While I have done nothing to this subject but ask a few questions it has responded by assuming I want to pass laws to do it harm... notice now:
Are they really so stupid to have to look up a phone number on a browser everytime they have to call it? Is that really helping matters by adding those extra minutes to report a crime.
It continues by making sweeping assumptions about the normality of it's own paranoid actions, assuming that calls that occur more than once a month are normal.
Our subject creates a world in which the perceived aggressor is a liar because the paranoia in the subject's responses is now apparent. While logically this has nothing to do with the questions it helps the psyche re-construct a world in which it justifies that paranoia.
First, I think you don't understand what road rage is.
The subject accuses the perceived aggressor of ignorance of how the subject defines it's world. This is a small bit of information leaked by the perceived aggressor turned into an illogical argument against the individual. Conflicting world-view has nothing to do with answering a few simple questions.
It's not being mad you are stuck in traffic, but as one on government assistance do you even have a job? We all know you are going to make that $120k teacher's salary 'one day' now with your PhD you will get 'one day'.
At this point the argumentation becomes non-sensical. Instead of defining the paranoid behavior, which the subject can't define lest the paranoia be obvious to itself and others, the subject tries to draw away from the clearly viable facts regarding the subject's paranoia. Despite the illogical nature of this ad-hominem attack the psyche of the subject has created a self-referential loop, one that now dismisses the perceived aggressor from the world the subject has created.
I don't think you understand the world at all.
This is a direct statement of the emotional and psychological movement that the paranoid mind will tend toward. There are many a case study where the exact same behaviors, though in a different context, occur. The next step is to reinforce the self-created world by further dismissing the questions asked by contextualizing the perceived aggressor out of the reality of the subject.
Don't you live in some smaller populated state like Mississippi or something that has nothing even remotely related to big city problems like a major city like Miami, New York, Chicago, etc has?
See here; While the subject lives in a small town outside of Orlando FL it has offered a dichotomy by appealing to 'Miami' the nearest large-town with true-problems that the subject can think of. Miami is a representation in the psyche of a place where turmoil and problems exist, clearly
many bad things happen in 'Miami'... further insight into the subject's personal experiences in the 'Miami' might offer a hint as to the underlying cause of the subject's past-traumas that have lead to this paranoid mind.
Discussion:
But for now we must leave the subject to respond with whatever line of attack it has left. Most likely it will try to call this some sort of insult, when in-fact it is little more than a psychological deconstruction of the kind of mind that is likely shared by both the subject and the fellow that lead himself into a situation where he had to kill a black boy... by no fault of his own, of course.
But yet in both cases the error in judgment has occurred because of the unique and paranoid world created by both parties. This construction of a world filled with paranoia is possibly correlated, then, with high utilization of police-calling and irresponsible gun use.
Proposition1: There is a direct correlation between often calling the police and paranoid personality disorder.
Proposition2: There is a direct correlation between paranoid personality disorder and irresponsible gun use.
Further research:
We should conduct a secondary data analysis that correlated those later diagnosed with PPD to both their use of guns irresponsibly and the number of times they have called the police. Further a statistically representative set of cases should be collected using validated instruments regarding PPD and those who are screened as highly likely, using standard testing procedures, to have PPD should be investigated. While highly limited, this line of sociological research could also be bolstered by experimental studies to establish the direction or potential mutuality causality regarding gun-ownership and PPD like traits.