In the last year, there have been two very highly publicized mass shootings in our country. Every single day, there are less publicized stories of shootings in various Metro Detroit cities. In the coming weeks, politicians at the Federal level are supposed to be giving recommendations for gun control laws to prevent these crimes. I fear that mental illness will be both a scapegoat and a target (No pun intended).
Here is my background: I was diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder in 2003. I am gainfully employed and volunteer several hours a week to help others. I do not want a gun but believe in people's rights to own and carry.
Sad Truth: I am far more likely to hurt myself than someone else. In fact, I would rather hurt myself than someone else. The vast majority of people die by suicide than by a mass shooting at the hands of someone with a mental illness. This is a better and less stigmatizing reason to have laws in place.
Here are the facts: It has been documented in study after study that a person with a mental illness is at no greater risk of committing a violent crime than someone who does not have a mental illness. In fact, many studies also show that people with a mental illness are more likely to be the victim of a violent crime than the perpetrator. Looking at Demographics, no one in a million years would ever say to not let an African American man...or simply a man purchase a gun. There are more statistics and studies to support that logic than the logic to prevent a person with a mental illness from carrying a gun. I believe laws that target any of these groups would be wrong.
Here is my fear: The only way to truly stop people with a mental illness from having a gun is to create a database. They have these in Europe very much like we have for sex offenders. Having a mental illness is not a crime, and we should NOT have a database. As we move forward with the ACA and electronic records, this is a likely scenario. I have absolutely no desire to have a gun, so I shouldn't be in a database. Looking at the reaction from these horrific acts, I can see the stigma and ignorance increase. Having a database would be just like wearing a scarlet letter.
Here is the Population: 1 in 5 people has been diagnosed with a mental llness. Therefore, 20% of the population would not be able to carry a weapon. I have also heard that the statistic is closer to 1 in 4. Guess what...Zoloft is not a heart pill and Lexapro isn't just for your nerves. They are antidepressants that millions of people take but act like they don't have a diagnosis. If you support gun control in general, this is still not the way to go.
The fact is...mental illness is NOT a factor or predictor of violence. We do need to do better by our citizens who are diagnosed with a mental illness. Limiting their rights is not the way to go about this. Creating a database would be catastrophic. Mental illness is not the issue. Please do not let it be the scapegoat.
I also believe that mental health awareness is just as important as an improvement in mental health care.
Now that my son has joined the Army, I am very concerned about possibly having to go through the same maze if he has PTSD. My relative was sometimes violent. We did not have guns in the house & so the harm she did involved bruising or cuts, but nothing fatal. Had she been inclined to get a weapon, I would have wanted some legal vehicle available to keep her from doing so. Family members are probably more at risk than the general public. I don't think this relative was ever out to get me or anyone else in the family (with the possible exception of my father). But her moods, including her rages, came on quite suddenly & whoever was in the way was at some risk. For the record, there were 16 mass shootings in the US in 2012 (http://www.thenation.com/blog/171774/fifteen-us-mass-shootings-happened-2012-84-dead#). Your article spoke of highly publicized ones -- even so, I believe there were more than 2.
At one point, my relative was certain that God had told her how to solve poverty in the world, especially for children, that she had written this solution down on an envelope, but she could not find the envelope. Her anguish over that envelope's loss led her to call 911, but that level of psychosis, absent a threat to her own life or another's, was not enough to get her treatment without her consent. At one point, my relative was seeing a psychologist & she signed the forms necessary for him to talk with me. However, those forms have to be renewed annually, and they lapsed without my being aware of it (the relative lived in a different state, so I was not involved weekly or anything). At that point, the psychologist was not even allowed to call me to tell me that the papers had lapsed although I was trying to get in touch with him because I was concerned that the relative was on the verge of becoming homeless. These are the kinds of barriers I'm talking about.
The irrationality of the "assault weapons" hysteria is easy to show. I will do that below in a reply to Carol Jackson.
This makes a fixation on assault rifles quite bizarre. Even more bizarre is the notion that 88 dead in mass shootings (the link you cite), which are a trivial proportion of firearms homicides and an infinitesimal (OK, finite by vanishingly small) proportion of total U.S. deaths (2.5 million in 2011) is a major public health problem. Just because something is sensational does not make it a big problem. In my blog post http://troy.patch.com/blog_posts/relax-youre-not-gonna-be-shot I attribute this bizarre fixation to the "availability heuristic". Coupled that with the sociological notion of "moral panic" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic and you have a good explanation for the current perseveration over "assault weapons". I'm old enough to remember many moral panics, starting with switchblade hysteria, moving on to child kidnappings, then to "Satanic Ritual Abuse" and daycare hysteria of the 80's, and now to "assault weapons". It never seems to occur to those participating in these hysterical outbreaks that they are acting like 16th century peasants, but they are.
That said, let me be clear. I have lived with a person who was sometimes psychotic. When that person was BOTH psychotic AND in a rage, that person could be violent. When that person was violent, she used the weapons available to her. Since we did not have guns in our home, those weapons were her fists, her fingernails, objects she found to throw, and, on one occasion, a kitchen knife. No one was ever killed, if for no other reason than those weapons rarely kill or if they do, you have to be at very close proximity to the person wielding them. We were all good at running when we had to. No one ever called the police. Blood & constant wariness, but not stats, were left behind. Based on my lived experience, I do think that if someone seeks to get a gun, law enforcement officials ought to provide people who know things about that person -- such as the things that 4 members of my family had direct, personal knowledge of with our relative -- an opportunity for a hearing where their concerns could be considered.
I can't stand the question "why does anyone NEED an assault rifle?" IMO, it's not about NEED. Why does anyone need a Corvette/Viper/Lambo that goes 200 MPH? That is illegal to do everywhere I know, and yes, they do kill people (in wrecks from incompetent drivers driving at high speeds). Point is, it's not entirely about need, but about want. As a law-abiding, upstanding, no-criminal-record, background-checked citizen, why can't I? If it's good enough for police use to protect me, it's good enough for me to use when the police aren't there (which they will NEVER be with me when I may need protection). Fallacy of "assault" weapons, they do not shoot any faster than regular old hunting rifles, unless ILLEGALLY modified as is currently against the law, which we know criminals do not follow. Bans were tried before, with no change in results over a DECADE. What makes anyone think it'll be different now?
Carol, my sympathies, I can imagine the difficulties in getting help for a relative in this age of HIPAA. I probably could not get any info on my college age child's health condition if I wanted to, even though they're still my dependent...need to get a power of health attorney for him to sign, but how would you get a resistant, psycotic, mentally ill relative to agree to that...probably need to get appointed guadian, examinations, court, lawyers, red tape..how many people would do that for a distant relative in the interest of the safety of society?
Don't complain if I respond to a comment about mass shootings by talking about mass shootings. Also, no idea what "I believe there were more than 2" remark is about.
Until I stopped living in the same house with this relative, my primary concern was violence. It then became that she might become homeless. To be in a position to help her, I couldn't kick in some punitive legal process such as calling the cops. Just because someone is mentally ill doesn't mean they stop being family. To make wise decisions about who it's safe to trust with a gun, I don't think criminal checks should be the only source.
".... a therapist who believes a mental health patient made a credible threat to use a gun illegally would be required to report it to a mental health director who would have to notify the state. A patient's gun could be taken from him or her" Would be interested in Kristen's and Carol's opinions given their familiarity with the mental health care system.
Also, one thing I don't recall seeing discussed is what's a mental illness? People can have depression that's no more threatening than a cold, or it can be fatal. Diseases/conditions historically classified as neurological (e.g., dementia or CTE (& PTSD may be a form of CTE)) cause significant behavior changes. Diseases historically classified as psychological (e.g., mood disorders, including bipolar disorder & depression, & schizophrenia) have a physiological component. Do you really want to codify into law a scientific understanding that is understood to be imperfect? Wouldn't it make more sense to talk about specific behaviors (including periods of psychosis or making threats) that would cause a license to be not granted (for a time) or suspended? I recommend that there be a mechanism for granting/not granting a gun license that's based on behaviors/threats that's not based solely on a mindless checklist. & fair enough to insist that anyone, like a family member, who suggests the applicant has a problem have to somehow corroborate that.
How long before government might require a mental evaluation before you're allowed to obtain a drivers license, or be approved for a loan/mortgage? What about marriage, having children? Will you be allowed to vote? Think it can't happen? Think again!
Why? You were assaulted and already attacked with a knife. Dead is dead. I suppose you will be forced to call the police when Uncle Harry had a chef's knife stuck in his chest. Just be aware if police come out and your relative is waving a knife around they will shoot her dead. That's the sort of outcome you get when you put off dealing with it until it can't be ignored any longer.