.
Feedback

Boots, Guns and Mental Illness

As we process the tragedy in Newtown and hug our own children tighter, I think we can and should have a compassionate, emotional discussion about guns and mental illness.

Yesterday, like so many, I was watching the horror unfold in Connecticut on TV.  My hands were shaking, tears were flowing and all I wanted to do was run up to my own children’s elementary school and hug them.   

I got sad, and still am, but then I got pissed and I wrote something.  I wanted to write something while the rage and sadness was fresh.  I wanted to make sure I don’t forget how much this hurts.  Because I want to see change.  I want a compassionate, emotional discussion about guns and mental illness. 

I actually began this post a couple weeks ago, because of a story I saw in the news. Remember the story about the nice police officer that gave the cold homeless man boots?  Remember how that made us all feel happy and have faith in the goodness of people?

The video went viral and everyone felt better about the world.  Yet, there was more to that story.  A couple tiny articles online reported that the homeless man had a home and a family.  That man “chose” that lifestyle and there was nothing anyone could do about it.  The article mentioned the man’s family had tried for years to help him and were grateful to the police officer for giving him the boots.  That part of the story is hard for people to understand.  It’s hard to put that in a sweet video that goes viral.  Because there is nothing sweet or simple about mental illness.

Living in fear of the call

When I read the rest of the story about the homeless man I nodded my head.  I know that man.  I know that family.  Not literally, but you see I am that family.  My own mother suffers from mental illness.  We have tried for over 20 years to get her help.  She lives alone.  She has pushed everyone, and I mean everyone, past the point of helping her.  Aside from my sister and me, there are only two other weary, tired people in this world that would come to her assistance.    

We’ve called social services (several times), sent her to detox, hired drivers and personal assistants (which she promptly fires and has even called the Better Business Bureau to report bogus claims), encouraged her to live in a swanky assisted living situation, worked with her doctors, limited her finances, tried to reason with her, begged her and it goes on and on. 

For so many years, we’ve waited for the call.  We live in fear of the call that she’s burned her condo down and not only was she hurt, but hurt other people too.  We live in fear of the call that she’s gotten into a car accident because she’s doped out of her mind on too many of the opiates she’s addicted to and killed herself and someone else.

A couple years ago, I found myself sitting in front of a team of psychiatrists who were treating my mother.  They were again explaining that since she’s a drug addict, they would first have to detox her to get a baseline of behavior to diagnose the actual mental illness and THEN they would treat her.  The problem lies in the fact that you can’t force people to stop doing drugs.  I desperately explained that this had been going on for so many years.  I told them about our fears of her falling asleep with lit cigarettes (which happened/s all the time) and setting fires, the crazy fact that she is still driving.   

“Please help me,” I screamed.  They shifted in their seats, but not did nothing.  “What do I do? What do I do?” They pushed a pamphlet across the table and nodded, still silent.  I picked up the pamphlet and took a look.  It was counseling resources for family members of drug addicts.  “This is it?” I was now screaming just a little bit.  I pounded my fists on the table, “If she hurts someone it’s on you!  It’s on you!” 

“Has she threatened to hurt you?” they asked, for the first time hopeful.  You see, if she had threatened or attempted to kill me or someone else, they could lock her up.  I shook my head, but in retrospect I honestly wish I had lied.   

They asked me if I needed a minute alone before taking my mother home with me.  And then they propped her up in a wheel chair and like a scene in a movie I wheeled her out of the hospital with tears streaming down my face.   

No one looked at me.  In fact they looked away.  Because mental illness is complicated and messy and frustrating.

There has to be a better way

I have learned so much over the past few years.  The most important lesson I’ve learned is that the way the system is set up now, you have to hurt someone before anything is “done.”  

My mother isn’t a violent person nor does she have access to guns.  I am not fearful that she will hurt people with guns.  Actually, I have feared that she will hallucinate to the wrong person or will anger the wrong person with her mean-spirited delusions.  The wrong person that might just be mentally unstable as well — and have a gun.

What scares me even more is the fact that people suffering like my mother are all over our country and they might be angrier and more violent. It scares me that they can get guns so easily.  

Look, I’ve been lectured by social workers and therapists about civil liberties regarding my inability to keep my mother in a psych ward/hospital against her wishes.  And I’m sure there are many gun lovers that will school me on civil liberties regarding the second amendment right now. 

Even though I would like it if all guns were illegal, period, I understand that bad things would still happen and that it’s an unlikely goal in our NRA dominated political U.S. of A.  But I have to believe that we can find a better way.  Why can’t we make buying a gun more difficult and expensive.  While we’re at it why don’t we fund more research for mental illness and re-evaluate how we treat mental illness?  

I have to believe out of the heartbreaking tragedy in Newtown we can start working together to find a better way.  We do not have to be powerless in the face of fear or mental illness. I want a compassionate, emotional discussion about guns and mental illness.

Dale Murrish December 18, 2012 at 10:23 pm
Actually, it’s not off topic. This is a typical leftist strategy to use a national tragedy to decrease liberty and increase the size and span of government control. It makes things more complicated than necessary and combines issues (gun control and mental illness) when they can be dealt with separately.
It’s an example of focusing on a smaller evil that we think something can be done about, while ignoring a huge elephant under the rug (the millions of children who die each year before they are born). We’re all potential Hitlers except for the grace of God. The use of the term “assault weapon” is a politically charged anti-gun statement. The Brady Bill banned certain types of weapons because they looked menacing, but did not ban hunting rifles that had exactly the same functional capabilities. This did nothing but make people feel better about doing something about a problem.
Dale Murrish December 18, 2012 at 10:24 pm
Our first responders can only help once they get there. What’s wrong with allowing elementary teachers to have CCW training and a pistol in a locked drawer? A similar situation occurred in China less than a week before. Only the police are allowed to have guns there. Violent crimes are committed with knives. Do we really want to follow China’s method of dealing with people who disagree, shipping dissidents off to remote prison camps?
Do we really want to abolish our 2nd Amendment without changing it by the written rules? I’m glad the NRA is alert to efforts to subvert our Constitution and willing to block efforts to change it by an emotional public response to a tragedy. If you disarm the public, you soon will have a compliant people unable to defend its rights against domestic tyrants. If you haven’t already, read http://rochester.patch.com/blog_posts/guns-arent-going-anywhere
Dale Murrish December 18, 2012 at 10:25 pm
As someone who has survived a brain tumor and depression, I empathize with your situation, Angela. The depression was a far bigger hurdle. In my case the depression was anger turned inward; I was only a danger to myself. By the grace of God, I came through it by putting one foot in front of the other. Many do not survive, choosing not to take meds that can help them and end up taking their own life. In some cases, these same psych meds can cause psychotic behavior – medicine is not an exact science.
The best advice I can give to a loved one of someone with mental illness is to detach enough to let them live their own life. You cannot do enough to save them from themselves. That burden of guilt is not for you to carry. Even if there was unlimited money available for psych care, some will not make it. Do what you can to help them and protect others and leave the rest up to God.
Lynn December 19, 2012 at 04:19 am
Frustrated Old Man, you say "Most of that info is very old". Sort of like the language in the 2nd amendment? Stop the hypocrisy.
Snyder just backed down, the NRA is about to do the same,. You probably should try to be open to discussion also. Things are going to change. They have to.
Tom Skyler December 19, 2012 at 01:25 pm
The question i always have when people give the argument that cars, knifes and other things can also kill people so why not ban everything is this.... Assault weapons are designed to kill people, as many as possible in the most efficient manner. That is there primary purpose, it is not the primary purpose for a car or other object. I hunt and i can say that none of my hunting friends, NRA members and gun enthusiasts i know have ever used those weapons to go hunting. They were designed for trained military personnel. Hand guns are protected by the federal government and hunting will still go on as normal with or without a restriction on certain types of weapons, so i dont know why these debates get so heated.
Lianne Mathie December 19, 2012 at 01:43 pm
I make the comment because, regardless of the topic, you are on your own agenda just about every time.
What do boots,gun and mental illness have to do with what YOUR trying to spin? Liberal agenda , my big toe Dale I would suggest you write your own blob on your own thread and if people want to read it, so be it.You are on a thread, concerning a completely different topic and it's all about what you,you,you wants. Indeed, I find it offensive that we are the one's that are idiots because we refuse to follow your willy nilly logic.
Frustrated Old Man December 19, 2012 at 02:07 pm
Ok, I'll bite. Do you honestly believe banning all guns will stop the killing? You don't think they'll find other means to fulfill their desire for destruction?
On a related note. Do you understand that the purpose of the 2A is to protect citizens from a dictatorship? If all citizens are unarmed, there would be nothing stopping our Government from becoming one. Look at history.
Frustrated Old Man December 19, 2012 at 02:09 pm
Debates get heated Tom, because we are a free nation, with our rights protected under the constitution. There are some who would like to take those rights away. Simple as that.
HelloThisIsDog December 19, 2012 at 04:10 pm
Lynn, as time passes and new data are added to existing data, our conclusions can change based on new information. Horray Science! As opinions change, the constitution can be amended, but this has not happened. The point you're trying to make to Old Man is invalid. If the language in the 2nd amendment was changed and old man was still referring to the original text, you may have a point
Jerry Barton December 19, 2012 at 04:26 pm
Actually, Lynn, you're falling victim to the media just like most people are. Those aren't "war" or military weapons, as they don't have ability to be switched to fully automatic. You look at those rifles that the media classifies as "assault rifles" and believe that it's true because they have the same look as the ones you see the military carrying. Yes, the .223 he used had a 30-round magazine, but so what. I have a .30-06 hunting rifle with a 4-round magazine. It takes me a mere second to drop my clip and insert a new one. I could probably fire off 30 rounds just about as quick as he did with the .223 and my rifle is actually more powerful. People want to ban so-called assault rifles because they "look scary". Try educating yourself on guns and you will find that most of these scary guns are way less dangerous than the ones that you aren't fussing about.
Jerry Barton December 19, 2012 at 04:29 pm
The only thing that needs to change is getting these whackjobs off the street and giving them proper access to mental health care. The problem doesn't lie with gunowners, just the mental people with access to guns. The NRA isn't going to back down, ever. If they do they will likely lose funding from the majority of their members and file Chapter 11.
Jerry Barton December 19, 2012 at 04:37 pm
Who would ever need a Ferrari or a Lambourghini when they can drive a Ford Focus? Believe it or not there are gun enthusiasts who just like to shoot them for sport and want to own one just because they can.
I have two kids and own a hunting rifle and a pistol. The worst thing you an ever do with your children with respect to firearms is pretend they don't exist. My children know where my firearms are, but I take sufficient precautions with a trigger and bolt lock on my rifle and my pistol is kept in a portable biometric gun safe if I'm not actively carrying it. Children should be taught to respect firearms, not fear them.
doug December 19, 2012 at 11:00 pm
To Frustrated Old Man: I am a legal gun owner with a carry permit. I defend the right of Americans to own guns for hunting and self protection. That said, we have always had limits to our freedom. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, despite first amendment rights. You can't buy a stinger missle or grenade launcher, despite 2nd amendment rights to bear arms.
What we are talking about is a responsible line. Does the assault rifle pass that line? Most would probably agree it does. There doesn't appear to be any real reason to own one. There are better alternatives for hunting and self protection. Do we need 30-100 capacity clips? Probably not. I can't recall a deer waiting around past the second shot. My fear is that our government will approach this as soley a gun problem. They will miss the opportunity to address the broader issue of the violent culture we blast our kids with in TV, movies, video games and the horrible way we brush mental illness aside. A knee jerk gun law reaction will just feel good until the next tragedy.
Dean Massalsky December 20, 2012 at 03:48 am
Doug-Best response I have read. Thank you. And I agree. Hopefully, this will be approached as a holistic problem. Mental health, raise the bar of ownership, better security at schools, and, getting the media to turn off the machine that motivates ome of these killers.
Jerry Barton December 20, 2012 at 12:42 pm
Doug,
You say that we probably don't need 30-100 capacity clips, but what's the time differential between shooting one 30-round magazine (there is a distinct difference between a clip and a magazine) with a semi-automatic rifle or shooting six 5-round magazines...maybe 10 seconds? Some people just think that the 30-round clip looks scarier but I think that's what most of the fuss is really all about anyway...because the "assault rifles" look scarier. In all actuality most hunting rifles are far more powerful than the majority of the assault rifles and, with multiple magazines, can cause just as much carnage in relatively the same amount of time. Caliber Muzzle Velocity(fps) Muzzle Energy(lbs/ft) .223 3,410 1,291 30-30 2,390 1,902 .308 2,2802 2,649 .03-06 2,910 2,810 .300 3,290 3,650 As you can plainly see, while a .223 round might travel faster, most hunting rifle rounds have far greater knock-down power. If we really want to get into a discussion about the 2nd Amendment we have to take a look at the intent. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..." This means that the framers of our Constitution wanted us to have the right to bear arms so that if the government because oppressive, we would have the means to overthrow it to secure our freedom. Period.
Tom Skyler December 20, 2012 at 01:54 pm
Well i think its pretty obvious is that these type of weapons were not available at the time of the writing of the second ammendment. I also don't want knee jerk reactions that restrict responsible citizens like myself from hunting or for protection but i dont need a grenade launcher or milliary weapons to do that. I am not worried my basic rights will be infringed, they werent during the 1994 to 2004 restrictions and this time it looks like they want to be doing a full approach of teaching/training and helping people be more aware of mental health, making gun owners more responsible (he should of not had access to his mothers guns, any responsible gun owner knows this) so i am open to cleaning up the bad gun owners who give us good ones a bad name. Enjoy
Richard Happening December 20, 2012 at 02:13 pm
Two (or more) handguns can easily be concealed, each with a 10-20 round magazine. Additional magazines are about half the size of a pack of cigarettes. In reality, this is FAR more dangerous than a long gun "assault" rifle, which may look evil, but is extremely hard to conceal. Also, making laws to reduce the size of magazines means that nefarious people will have to go to extreme measures, like duct-taping two clips together in order to double their capacity. Or, maybe they would be willing to break the law and buy one of the 10's of millions of high-capacity mags that would still exist after passage of such a law. My guess is that anyone willing to commit mass murder would also be willing to commit "purchase of illegal high-capacity magazine". Emotions are high here. Let's try to make sense in our solutions.
For those who need to know (it shouldn't matter)..... I own zero guns and never have. I am not an NRA member, have never been.
Richard Happening December 20, 2012 at 02:23 pm
Or two mags, Jerry- whatever!
Dick Jaeger December 20, 2012 at 02:33 pm
Angela,
Absolutely agree with both issues in your blog. in mine printed late yesterday in the Farmington-mi Patch, I make the point (with respect to gun control) that the Heller and McDonald decisions of the Supreme Court reverse long standing and historic decisions including one in 1939 that was unanimous - both the 2008 and 2010 decisions by the way were 5-4, hardly overwhelming. The other point is that a car is manufactured to transport people from point a to point b. Firearms are manufactured to kill, period end. Target shooting is merely a technique for honing one's skills at doing what the manufacturer built the weapon for: to kill.
G-Money December 20, 2012 at 02:45 pm
Anyone know what happened to the "Giving up Guns" thread?
doug December 20, 2012 at 04:39 pm
It remains to be seen whether the Presdient's efforts will REALLY address the problem or just become a political gun law exercise to appease the masses, which will do nothing to stop the next massacre.
-Gun's arent going away . The bad guys will always have them and the law biding citizens of America will never give them up, for that reason alone. There are between 350 and 500 million guns in America. Lets be realistic. -Mass shooters have a scary profile consistency. Loner middle class white males who were outcasts and escaped reality through violent video games and movies. Often with mental issues. Will the President's commission come down on his hollywood friends for the violent culture they foster through video games, movies and music? I doubt it. Will Congress be willing to fund mental illness treatment to help address the next mass shooter before they become one? I doubt it I expect they will simply reinstate the assault weapons ban and a limit on the size of magazines. I dont have a problem with that as I see little use for them anyways. It just bothers me that this will have no effect and we will be talking about this again .....Keep in mind that I have a concelaed weapons permit and own several guns
Dean Massalsky December 20, 2012 at 07:42 pm
I am hopeful that what comes out of this is a holistic approach. Stiffer requirements for gun ownership ( I am NOT anti-gun), better healthcare services, a change in the media and how they report, and better school safety. There is no one size fits all answer. I don't care what the answer is, as long as people are safer, and I don't know what it is, but I know what we have now is not working.
Too many people are responding aggressively at the mere thought of a certain type of gun going away, which I think is ridiculous, but I also see the point regarding criminals not following laws, bad guys being bad guys, etc. It is quite frankly a mess that should have been cleaned up 20 years ago.
Richard Happening December 20, 2012 at 08:34 pm
Another problem Bush left for Obama to solve.
doug December 20, 2012 at 10:20 pm
The President had 2 years where his party controlled the WH, House and Senate. He could have passed just about anything he wanted. He chose not to address gun laws, immigration, gay marraige, etc.... Time to stop blaming ..
Erin December 21, 2012 at 02:49 am
Doug - Seriously? Obama came in with an economy, banking, housing on the verge of a full on Depression - the Markets in a literal freefall, 9% GDP contraction, 800,000/month job losses, our iconic major manufacturing base tettering towards liquidation. And, an opposition party who proclaimed their number one job was - JOBS? DEBT? ECONOMY? NO - to make Obama a one term president, ready to oppose legislation of ANY kind. And, with the gun lobby throwing millions behind the opposition (as well as any Repub candidate who dared even speak of guns), who in the world thinks gun control was at all doable at that time?
Steve Herrington December 21, 2012 at 03:18 am
The Facts are gun control does not work, in fact it works in reverse by allowing more violent crime. Chicago is a prime example, very tough gun control and out of control violent crime! Many people use these so called "assault" rifles for hunting and target shooting. In fact it is these gun control laws like "gun free zones" that open the door for these mass killings by leaving people defenseless against these deranged sick killers. There is no such thing as a gun free zone for criminals obviously. Yes, educate people on safe use of firearms and keep them out of reach of the mentally ill but don't disarm the law abiding sane people!
http://news.msn.com/us/video?videoid=7389caeb-9b4e-4384-86a5-0038afd9dab2&channelindex=2&from=en-us_msnhp&form=msnrll
Lee Zendel December 22, 2012 at 02:06 am
I didn't believe it ! so I Googled it. and there it was. it was the online video game entitled "Kindergarten Killers". Google it and then play it. It's as bad as it sounds.
However, just like the those how would take away all guns from citizens, there are those who want to censor all violent video games and violent movies. I fit in neither camp. I am a firm believer in both the first and second amendments to our great Constitution. Which leaves the solution to preventing another Sandy Hook is in the mental Health arena. In my opinion, we as a society must re-open the mental hospitals.
pam ghaster January 13, 2013 at 02:02 pm
@Lee, video games have destroyed our children. They have desenitized our children. These kids who played hour upon hours of brutal video games will need mental health attention. This generation.............is a mess.
pam ghaster
Lee Zendel January 14, 2013 at 02:53 pm
Pam:
Did the parents of those children who have been desensitized by video games buy those games for them? Did those parents allow those children to play those games for hours on end? Did those parents teach their children at an early age the meaning of the word "no" ? Do those parents ever insist that their children not watch violent movies or violent TV shows? Maybe as well as licenses for handgun ownership we should require parenting classes before any couple is allowed to have children? Or does that finally hit your limit as to government control over our lives? Our Washington politicians are willing to "infringe" our gun rights
Lee Zendel January 15, 2013 at 08:11 pm
Dick-
Are you saying that 5-4 decisions are not valid? Or that a 8-1 decision is less valid than a 9-0 one? Please explain

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Rochester-Rochester Hills Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Barbara Barnes June 14, 2013 at 03:01 pm
The date is June 20th. Call Barbara Barnes LMSW at 248 651-9097 to reserve you place at the FirstRead More Congregational Church, 1315 N. Pine St, Rochester.
Scot Beaton June 12, 2013 at 11:31 pm
Hugo... the road, bridge, road right of way: The Road Commission for Oakland County (RCOC)... theRead More aesthetic black fence... Rochester Hills... let's assume there waiting for an insurance claim to go through or debating who pays. Thanks for your post. You could call the Mayor, but he is in Istanbul Turkey... looking over some plans for a new shopping mall they want to build in an historic park. Makes perfectly good sense this is the same Mayor who supported tearing down a historic house on Rochester Road to build a new strip mall... and turning Office Research Technology zoning into a Wal-Mart.
Beverly June 13, 2013 at 12:02 pm
Yes I have been wondering too...I am going to use the RCOC website and see if they will respond
Clara T June 12, 2013 at 10:05 pm
Yes, the Oakland Press had this list.
Clara T June 12, 2013 at 10:07 pm
Can you please provide the names of the individuals representing Lawrence Tech, Rochester College,Read More RCS school board, Crittenton?
Jmamo June 14, 2013 at 09:12 am
It's just a con job on the tax payers. Non productive for Rochester Hills but Barnett will smileRead More with a political knife in the residents back. This really should be brought up by the citizens and not an absent mayor.