Gun control? How about a national discussion on mental health

[perhaps11]

A great article in Huff Post written by a woman seeking to put mental health at the forefront of the national conversation following the massacre in Connecticut. Basically, a woman writes about her struggles with her own son's mental health and really puts things in perspective. A great read!

Here is the link: I am Adam Lanza's Mother

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Rivi]

a great article in huff post written by a woman seeking to put mental health at the forefront of the national conversation following the massacre in connecticut. Basically, a woman writes about her struggles with her own son's mental health and really puts things in perspective. A great read!

Here is the link: i am adam lanza's mother

+ 1

 

[ceruleania]

Personally, I like this blog's perspective on how mental health issues relate to the shooting. Feel as if it's a more representative approach to the situation.

http://emmadelosnardos.tumblr.com/post/37951875432/tragedy-therapy-and-the-threat-within

 

[futureapppsy2]

A great article in Huff Post written by a woman seeking to put mental health at the forefront of the national conversation following the massacre in Connecticut. Basically, a woman writes about her struggles with her own son's mental health and really puts things in perspective. A great read!

Here is the link: I am Adam Lanza's Mother

Tbh, I'm rather hesitant about the idea of a "national discussion of mental health" being centered around mass murders. Of course, they are incredibly horrific, but overall, people with mental illness are not more violent than the general population--substance abuse in both groups is a marked risk factor--and are actually much more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators of it. If the discussion is centered around the underlying message of "those crazies are going to snap so we better do something about them," it misses both a vast majority of clients as well as the benefits of mental health care outside of violence prevention --things like services for trauma victims, preventing or reducing disability, etc. Not to mention, our ability to clinically predict violence, especially mass shootings, is hazy at best. I'm in no way dismissing the horror of these tragedies, but if we're going to have a "national discussion on mental health," it needs to focus on more than a very small segment of the subpopulation and of psychology in order to be meaningful, IMO. (Not to mention, violence prevention research is very difficult because your primary outcome measure is often non-occurrences of relatively rare events, especially when the focus is mass murder/violence against strangers, which is a small subset of violent crime).

ETA: Also, I'm a bit lost on what the response to article should be. From reading it, this doesn't appear to be an access issue but rather a treatment non-response issue. According to the mom, her son has received a variety of behavioral AND pharmaceutical interventions and apparently did not respond to any of them adequately. This article poses interesting questions about people with mental illness who are violent and who don't respond to treatment and about family members/caregivers for such people, but I'm not sure where a national discussion on treatment non-response can lead in the short term. Any ideas?

 

[wigflip]

Tbh, I'm rather hesitant about the idea of a "national discussion of mental health" being centered around mass murders. Of course, they are incredibly horrific, but overall, people with mental illness are not more violent than the general population--substance abuse in both groups is a marked risk factor--and are actually much more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators of it. If the discussion is centered around the underlying message of "those crazies are going to snap so we better do something about them," it misses both a vast majority of clients as well as the benefits of mental health care outside of violence prevention --things like services for trauma victims, preventing or reducing disability, etc. Not to mention, our ability to clinically predict violence, especially mass shootings, is hazy at best. I'm in no way dismissing the horror of these tragedies, but if we're going to have a "national discussion on mental health," it needs to focus on more than a very small segment of the subpopulation and of psychology in order to be meaningful, IMO. (Not to mention, violence prevention research is very difficult because your primary outcome measure is often non-occurrences of relatively rare events, especially when the focus is mass murder/violence against strangers, which is a small subset of violent crime).

ETA: Also, I'm a bit lost on what the response to article should be. From reading it, this doesn't appear to be an access issue but rather a treatment non-response issue. According to the mom, her son has received a variety of behavioral AND pharmaceutical interventions and apparently did not respond to any of them adequately. This article poses interesting questions about people with mental illness who are violent and who don't respond to treatment and about family members/caregivers for such people, but I'm not sure where a national discussion on treatment non-response can lead in the short term. Any ideas?

NIcely said, future. I'd like to add that in addition to this:

substance abuse in both groups is a marked risk factor

maleness is a huge risk factor for all kinds of violence (not just mass murder). this is acknowledged by the author of first piece, but not developed in any significant way.

"these boys—and their mothers—need help...According to Mother Jones, since 1982, 61 mass murders involving firearms have occurred throughout the country. Of these, 43 of the killers were white males, and only one was a woman."

Love however, that if you keep scrolling down to the "From Our Partners" section (at least at the time I read the article) you can watch a nifty little video entitled :"How to Get Daughters to Dress Appropriately."

 

[wigflip]

I'm not crazy about this in the second linked text:

"There are many violent acts that are committed by ‘normal' individuals who cannot control their anger "

It plays into myths that have negative implications for VAW survivors and their advocates.

 

[MBellows]

I'm not crazy about this in the second linked text:

"There are many violent acts that are committed by ‘normal’ individuals who cannot control their anger "

It plays into myths that have negative implications for VAW survivors and their advocates.

Sounds like frontal lobe damage to me!

But seriously, unless the discussion is about having more open access to mental health services in light of the pending fiscal downward slanty thing or about the wonderful therapists giving their time for free to the families affected by this monstrosity, lets hold off on the mental health talk post mass murder to avoid making any early assumptions about what may or may not have helped in this instance and what may or may not help in the future.

 

[KillerDiller]

ETA: Also, I'm a bit lost on what the response to article should be....This article poses interesting questions about people with mental illness who are violent and who don't respond to treatment and about family members/caregivers for such people, but I'm not sure where a national discussion on treatment non-response can lead in the short term. Any ideas?

I agree. I may be open to a national discussion on mental health, but I'm uncertain what such a conversation would actually look like. I enjoyed the article. I thought it was well written and thought provoking. I certainly sympathize with the mother and hope that she and her son can find an effective treatment. However, many of the comments simply state things like "Yeah, psychologists and psychiatrists are so out of touch." Out of touch with what exactly? What would make us more in touch? Reinstating mental institutions? (That may sound flippant, but I mean it as a serious question.) In general, I find these vague calls to "reform" the system to be annoying and--ironically--out of touch with what mental health actually looks like.

 

[ResearchGirlie]

Sounds like frontal lobe damage to me!

But seriously, unless the discussion is about having more open access to mental health services in light of the pending fiscal downward slanty thing or about the wonderful therapists giving their time for free to the families affected by this monstrosity, lets hold off on the mental health talk post mass murder to avoid making any early assumptions about what may or may not have helped in this instance and what may or may not help in the future.

This, exactly. I was watching a show last night where the reports were saying something to the effect of: we didn't know people with asperger's were so dangerous.

 

[ResearchGirlie]

I agree. I may be open to a national discussion on mental health, but I'm uncertain what such a conversation would actually look like. I enjoyed the article. I thought it was well written and thought provoking. I certainly sympathize with the mother and hope that she and her son can find an effective treatment. However, many of the comments simply state things like "Yeah, psychologists and psychiatrists are so out of touch." Out of touch with what exactly? What would make us more in touch? Reinstating mental institutions? (That may sound flippant, but I mean it as a serious question.) In general, I find these vague calls to "reform" the system to be annoying and--ironically--out of touch with what mental health actually looks like.

Not to mention that the calls are to reform the system while also not wanting to part with money for said reform.

 

[CourageToGrow]

People will go to the dentist twice a year, have a family doctor, chiropractor, but no one goes to see a psychologist before a problem happens. Preventative care for the mind, if you will.

 

[roubs]

People will go to the dentist twice a year, have a family doctor, chiropractor, but no one goes to see a psychologist before a problem happens. Preventative care for the mind, if you will.

Yep, this is as good a place to start as any.

Also, I think it's possible to have a national discussion about gun regulation (specifically, the regulation of military grade weapons & large ammo clips) and mental health at the same time.

 

[thewesternsky]

ETA: Also, I'm a bit lost on what the response to article should be. From reading it, this doesn't appear to be an access issue but rather a treatment non-response issue. According to the mom, her son has received a variety of behavioral AND pharmaceutical interventions and apparently did not respond to any of them adequately. This article poses interesting questions about people with mental illness who are violent and who don't respond to treatment and about family members/caregivers for such people, but I'm not sure where a national discussion on treatment non-response can lead in the short term. Any ideas?

Excellent point. There's also an interesting response to the article here:

http://jezebel.com/5968971/that-wom...source=jezebel_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

The response isn't perfect, but it is quite interesting. The basic premise is that the solution to gun violence is gun control, not mental health treatment. Most people with mental illness are much more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators of it.... And every day in America, 8 people under age 20 are killed by guns.

Mental health treatment in America is broken. There is lots of evidence for that. But mass killings aren't the most persuasive of that evidence.

 

[roubs]

Excellent point. There's also an interesting response to the article here:

http://jezebel.com/5968971/that-wom...source=jezebel_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

The response isn't perfect, but it is quite interesting. The basic premise is that the solution to gun violence is gun control, not mental health treatment. Most people with mental illness are much more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators of it.... And every day in America, 8 people under age 20 are killed by guns.

Mental health treatment in America is broken. There is lots of evidence for that. But mass killings aren't the most persuasive of that evidence.

Yep, that article pretty much hits the nail on the head. I do think there's value to reading and empathizing with parents w/mentally ill kids though. Most non-mental health people sharing it were just shocked at all the s&%^ this mom has to go through, and I think it's good to get people thinking about how hard some parents have it. I didn't really read the first article and think "yeah, lets ignore gun regulation!"

 

[cara susanna]

I agree. I may be open to a national discussion on mental health, but I'm uncertain what such a conversation would actually look like. I enjoyed the article. I thought it was well written and thought provoking. I certainly sympathize with the mother and hope that she and her son can find an effective treatment. However, many of the comments simply state things like "Yeah, psychologists and psychiatrists are so out of touch." Out of touch with what exactly? What would make us more in touch? Reinstating mental institutions? (That may sound flippant, but I mean it as a serious question.) In general, I find these vague calls to "reform" the system to be annoying and--ironically--out of touch with what mental health actually looks like.

Oh my God, thank you! I am being driven nuts by this vague talk of "mental health reform."

First off, institutionalization isn't exactly an ideal solution. Second off, even if we had more access to mental healthcare, I doubt a lot of people would use it--we of all people know how often clients either fail to show or drop out of treatment. Third, we can't force people into treatment unless they are an imminent risk, and I doubt violent individuals are going to have the attitude of "Hey, I'm feeling kind of homicidal today, I should probably stop by a therapist's office."

What REALLY annoys me about this discussion is that Adam Lanza's mother was wealthy and would not have had trouble accessing services. Mental health reform is obviously a relevant topic, but I don't know why it's being brought up with respect to this particular incident. I don't think that access to mental healthcare was the issue. His mother was probably not playing with a full deck if the reports we're hearing are accurate, but she probably didn't seek services and no one could have forced her into them. Assuming that therapists/psychiatrists/etc would have for sure prevented this contributes to the "mental healthcare is a silver bullet" mentality. As people have said, mental healthcare providers are not oracles, sometimes treatments fail, and sometimes the client is just not compliant.

Oh, not to mention all of the media going "Well, he had a personality disorder--we don't know which one, but it must have been antisocial PD!"

This article especially irks me--it's not only a problem to bring up your son's confidential mental health history, but it acts sensationalist with the "I am Adam Lanza's mother" angle.

One more thing: I also agree it's not the best idea to assume that someone who commits acts like this is mentally ill. Our society copes with tragedy by assuming, oh, this person couldn't have been in his or her right mind. But is that always true?

Edit: Sorry for the incoherence and babbling nature of this... I have a lot of feelings!

 

[futureapppsy2]

^
I agree, cara.

Another thing that bugs me about that mother's article: there's a huge difference between blogging identifiably about details of your personal life online and blogging identifiably about the details of someone else's personal life online without their permission. I don't think the latter is "courageous" at all. That mom's son will have the label of "future mass murder" hanging over his head for a long time--if he's not socially isolated and stigmatized already, he sure will be now.

Also, I don't think a discussion about mental health centered around "them crazies are gonna kill people so we better do something about them" is going to reduce stigma or apply to the vast, vast majority of people with mental health issues other than to stigmatize them further and perpetuate the mental illness=violence myth. Plus, we don't really know if Adam Lanza was mentally ill other than vage repoirts that he had an unidentified PD.

 

[JeyRo]

Based on stats I've been able to locate, there have been approximately 197 deaths from mass shootings over the last ten years. According to my very approximate cocktail napkin math, that means that you're more likely to die from a plane crash (6x more), a tornado (4x more likely) or a car crash (2200x more) than in a mass shooting.

How about suicide? Something around 35,000 people die from suicide each year (IIRC) - isn't that enough of a reason to have a "national conversation about mental health"?

I say this in part as a parent of two young kids in the same age group as many of the kids recently killed in Sandy Hook - mass shootings in schools are extremely rare, exceedly rare events. In part for my own mental health, I'm not going to spend my time worrying about this kind of thing happening to my kids, in the same way I'm not going to spend my time worrying about my kids getting killed in a car crash or natural disaster (which in most cases is far more likely).

We should pay attention to this event and try and learn from it, but the costs of foolhardy national overreactions to this kind of thing (e.g., like I've been hearing on talk radio of late - mass gun bans, or arming up schoolteachers as a matter of course) would seem to easily outweigh any possible benefits. I'm concerned about institutional overreaction as regards kids with mental health or developmental disabilities as well. We all need to try and get some perspective on this before we do anything. But why listen to me? As they say, never waste a good crisis, right? <---- cynic

 

[FadedC]

That's always going to be how it is with the media and our reactions though, we don't react to ongoing problems until there is a big dramatic event surrounding them. From what I can tell, it looks like the number of shooting deaths every year in the US is around 10,000. But we don't pay any attention to it, until something horrible like a mass shooting at an elementary school happens.

Based on stats I've been able to locate, there have been approximately 197 deaths from mass shootings over the last ten years. According to my very approximate cocktail napkin math, that means that you're more likely to die from a plane crash (6x more), a tornado (4x more likely) or a car crash (2200x more) than in a mass shooting.

How about suicide? Something around 35,000 people die from suicide each year (IIRC) - isn't that enough of a reason to have a "national conversation about mental health"?

I say this in part as a parent of two young kids in the same age group as many of the kids recently killed in Sandy Hook - mass shootings in schools are extremely rare, exceedly rare events. In part for my own mental health, I'm not going to spend my time worrying about this kind of thing happening to my kids, in the same way I'm not going to spend my time worrying about my kids getting killed in a car crash or natural disaster (which in most cases is far more likely).

We should pay attention to this event and try and learn from it, but the costs of foolhardy national overreactions to this kind of thing (e.g., like I've been hearing on talk radio of late - mass gun bans, or arming up schoolteachers as a matter of course) would seem to easily outweigh any possible benefits. I'm concerned about institutional overreaction as regards kids with mental health or developmental disabilities as well. We all need to try and get some perspective on this before we do anything. But why listen to me? As they say, never waste a good crisis, right? <---- cynic

 

[JeyRo]

That's always going to be how it is with the media and our reactions though, we don't react to ongoing problems until there is a big dramatic event surrounding them. From what I can tell, it looks like the number of shooting deaths every year in the US is around 10,000.

That's probably true - but I'm guess that 10K number includes shooting deaths related to gang violence, interpersonal violence (disputes) etc., which is apparently easy for people to ignore. The so-called "autogenic massacres" (Columbine-style mass shootings) are extremely, exceedingly rare - but now, finally, apparently, we "need to act" (quoting Obama). Totally illogical.

But we don't pay any attention to it, until something horrible like a mass shooting at an elementary school happens.

 

[FadedC]

It's definitely illogical, but that's always how we work. We can easily ignore 10,000 shooting deaths a year, that's just a statistic. But when a tiny percentage of those deaths are given faces and heavy media coverage, that's the type of thing that inspires people to take action, logical or not.

That's probably true - but I'm guess that 10K number includes shooting deaths related to gang violence, interpersonal violence (disputes) etc., which is apparently easy for people to ignore. The so-called "autogenic massacres" (Columbine-style mass shootings) are extremely, exceedingly rare - but now, finally, apparently, we "need to act" (quoting Obama). Totally illogical.

 

[cara susanna]

One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic"

 

[wigflip]

One more thing: I also agree it's not the best idea to assume that someone who commits acts like this is mentally ill. Our society copes with tragedy by assuming, oh, this person couldn't have been in his or her right mind. But is that always true?

Really like this point, cara. I'm guessing you've encountered this attitude in VAW circles (as I have). People commonly conflate deviance (especially criminal deviance) and mental illness. But sometimes people are physically and/or sexually violent because they have the opportunity and the inclination. That notion is so terrifying that it's easier to slap a stigmatizing label on the perpetrator ("He musta been crazeee!") in order to establish some distance from him.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Really like this point, cara. I'm guessing you've encountered this attitude in VAW circles (as I have). People commonly conflate deviance (especially criminal deviance) and mental illness. But sometimes people are physically and/or sexually violent because they have the opportunity and the inclination. That notion is so terrifying that it's easier to slap a stigmatizing label on the perpetrator ("He musta been crazeee!") in order to establish some distance from him.

Yeah, and it's circular logic:

"He's mentally ill because he killed people. / He killed people because he's mentally ill."

(I'm so glad we can have a logical, evidenced-based discussion about this on SDN! For the most part, FB has just demonstrated how little many of my friends know about psychology).

 

[roubs]

Based on stats I've been able to locate, there have been approximately 197 deaths from mass shootings over the last ten years. According to my very approximate cocktail napkin math, that means that you're more likely to die from a plane crash (6x more), a tornado (4x more likely) or a car crash (2200x more) than in a mass shooting.

How about suicide? Something around 35,000 people die from suicide each year (IIRC) - isn't that enough of a reason to have a "national conversation about mental health"?

I say this in part as a parent of two young kids in the same age group as many of the kids recently killed in Sandy Hook - mass shootings in schools are extremely rare, exceedly rare events. In part for my own mental health, I'm not going to spend my time worrying about this kind of thing happening to my kids, in the same way I'm not going to spend my time worrying about my kids getting killed in a car crash or natural disaster (which in most cases is far more likely).

We should pay attention to this event and try and learn from it, but the costs of foolhardy national overreactions to this kind of thing (e.g., like I've been hearing on talk radio of late - mass gun bans, or arming up schoolteachers as a matter of course) would seem to easily outweigh any possible benefits. I'm concerned about institutional overreaction as regards kids with mental health or developmental disabilities as well. We all need to try and get some perspective on this before we do anything. But why listen to me? As they say, never waste a good crisis, right? <---- cynic

Sure, some people overreact and want mass gun bans, but I think it's sensible to ask for serious gun regulation ala Australia and see if we get similar results.

 

[deleted176373]

Sure, some people overreact and want mass gun bans, but I think it's sensible to ask for serious gun regulation ala Australia and see if we get similar results.

Or if it works out to be a little more like Mexico or even Norway perhaps???

Sometimes it appears that everyone wants to talk about all the things that, at the end of the day, may be tangential to the real issue. Why do events like these happen? Are we to believe that all these people who engage in horrible crimes against other humans simply are failures of the mental health system? Is it a failure of government? Is it a failure of law?

I doubt it, because laws, governments, and mental health professionals have been unable to stop these things... EVER.

What ever happened to personal responsibility?

T.M. (800 injured, 168 killed by the blast)
N.H. (42 shot, 13 killed)
S.-H.C. (32 killed, 23 injured)
A.B.B. (242 injured, 77 dead - blasts and firearms)
Any of the 9/11 hijackers (>3000 dead, ~20 attackers responsible)
A.L. (30 shot, 28 killed)
Any iragi suicide bomber in recent history (over 1800 attacks in the past 10 years alone!)
J.L.L. (Shot 18, killed 6)
J.A.M. (Shot 13, killed 9 or 10)
L.B.M. (Shot 13, killed 9 or 10)
M.Y. (stabbed 24 in china)
M.G. (stabbed 4 in new york, killing 3)

No, in most cases (down syndrome kids recruited by Al Qaeda for suicide bombing are a notable exception) these were individuals who were lucid and capable of making a choice. They chose for any number of reasons to make a public spectacle of their killing sprees. Not all of these criminals and terrorists used firearms, although many did, the ease and availability of firearms (in any country) make them prime choices for terrorists and criminals to facilitate the terrible decisions they make.

These people should not be excused or celebrated, they are criminals and terrorists. I am not going to even print their names, because the only people worth remembering were their victims. This is not a failing of mental health, government, or law. It's a failing of human decency.

As a general rule, these individuals appear to know quite clearly what they are doing and the wrongfulness of their acts. This is especially true of those cowardly enough to resort to suicide to avoid punishment for their deeds.

Certainly there are precipitating factors and one might convince me that a few of the above had severely impaired reality testing. That potentially they may not have been fully responsible for their actions. However, that's a real stretch especially given the nature of the crimes and their behaviors following the crimes.

Morgan Freeman got it right the other day, it's time to stop celebrating the acts of these criminals and providing them with their 15 minutes of fame.

 

[roubs]

I'm not sure that gun regulation would cause drug cartels to sprout up and begin a massive war, but I am sure that our current system provides for ~10,000 gun deaths per year, so I'm up for a different approach.

And, respectfully, I don't fully agree w/the "there will always be criminals (or evil) in the world" argument. I agree that they are often lucid people making a choice, but an appeal to personal responsibility doesn't excuse us from taking steps to structure our society in a way that reduces the overall risk of death at the hand of a deranged individual. That argument actually makes me believe in gun regulation more strongly, because if their nature is never going to be the point of interdiction, then a damage control strategy seems more like the right path. When we discuss a person's risk of harming themselves, we know that the most lethal (read: instantaneous death) means need to be discussed, and that the presence of guns greatly increases the risk of a completed suicide. More broadly, it increases the risk of death when someone wants to harm someone.

Events like this are always going to have an emotional impact, but it's unfortunate people all over the political spectrum don't show more thoughtfulness even in the face of a tragedy. Some people do actually want to ban guns or repeal the 2nd amendment, a poorly thought out non-option that gives people on the other side something to react to rather than consider that specific factors should be studied in relation to how they impact risk.

 

[wigflip]

I'm not sure that gun regulation would cause drug cartels to sprout up and begin a massive war, but I am sure that our current system provides for ~10,000 gun deaths per year, so I'm up for a different approach.

+1
I can't envision any scenario where private citizens have a legitimate "need" for access to automatic/semi-automatic weapons.

By the way, roubs, I've been watching Sherlock and wondering if I misremembered where your avatar came from. Last night we finally got there. Now I'm stuck brooding over the episode 3 cliffhanger while I try not to blow a dreadful paper deadline. Which of course explains what I'm doing here...

 

[roubs]

+1
I can't envision any scenario where private citizens have a legitimate "need" for access to automatic/semi-automatic weapons.

By the way, roubs, I've been watching Sherlock and wondering if I misremembered where your avatar came from. Last night we finally got there. Now I'm stuck brooding over the episode 3 cliffhanger while I try not to blow a dreadful paper deadline. Which of course explains what I'm doing here...

Apparently a high production value / low budget combo means we are doomed to wait a long time between seasons :/

 

[deleted176373]

+1
I can't envision any scenario where private citizens have a legitimate "need" for access to automatic/semi-automatic weapons.

Really, would you feel that same way if the Egyptians, Libyans, Syrians, or {insert oppressed populace here} did not have access to those weapons in which to overthrow their governments? What do you suspect the eventual and likely outcome is for people who have no method of taking back power from their government?

Who determines the legitimacy of the need?

Would you have argued that the Bosnian Muslims didn't have a legitimate need for access to automatic and semi-automatic weapons? How about the Iraqi Kurds? What about those who live in dangerous inner city neighborhoods in major metropolitan areas in the US?

Who exactly does or does not need access to a competent way of defending themselves?

If you want make the argument that private citizens are less worthy than the governments and governmental authorities they are members of, then I believe you are walking down a dangerous path that invariably leads to oppression and unfairness if one pays any attention to history.

I understand that people think "gun control" is a legitimate topic, it's silly, but unless you regulate tool use you can never regulate firearms. Never. Most reasonably motivated intelligent persons with basic tools can build firearms (effective ones) in their basement. How do you expect to control that? You can't even control the use and consumption of methamphetamine and cocaine in this country.

Sorry, gun control, like drug control. Doesn't work, and cannot work.

Mark

 

[deleted176373]

I'm not sure that gun regulation would cause drug cartels to sprout up and begin a massive war, but I am sure that our current system provides for ~10,000 gun deaths per year, so I'm up for a different approach.

There are about 2-3 times (35,498/2010) more motor vehicle deaths in this country IIRC, not to even start in with deaths associated with smoking and obesity!

"Motor vehicle crashes are one of the leading causes of death in the U.S. More than 2.3 million adult drivers and passengers were treated in emergency departments as the result of being injured in motor vehicle crashes in 2009." - CDC

Yet nearly every vehicle is controlled and registered by the government.

 

[roubs]

I think the phrase 'gun control' is bad, partly because it conjures the concerns you raise. But I also don't think it's sound to rely so strongly on hypotheticals--that because a person can make a homemade gun, we shouldn't bother to think about ease of access and should allow giant sized loopholes in background checks. The phrase 'gun control' leads to ideas of prohibition and comparisons to things like ineffective drug laws, whereas I think we need is gun regulation to the level we have for legal things like alcohol and cars.

 

[deleted176373]

I think the phrase 'gun control' is bad, partly because it conjures the concerns you raise. But I also don't think it's sound to rely so strongly on hypotheticals--that because a person can make a homemade gun, we shouldn't bother to think about ease of access and should allow giant sized loopholes in background checks. The phrase 'gun control' leads to ideas of prohibition and comparisons to things like ineffective drug laws, whereas I think we need is gun regulation to the level we have for legal things like alcohol and cars.

I don't know if I would be pointing at alcohol and automobiles and touting those as great examples of government regulation protecting us!

 

[Pragma]

Considering that it would be easier to get a semi-automatic rifle and 800 rounds of ammo than it would be to get Cialis, I'd say some additional restrictions on access would be reasonable.

I agree that "banning" guns is a terrible idea. But come on - it is just ridiculously easy to get your hands on one.

 

[roubs]

I don't know if I would be pointing at alcohol and automobiles and touting those as great examples of government regulation protecting us!

booze:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/november_december_2012/features/last_call041131.php?page=1

cars:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/09/17/science/driving-safety-in-fits-and-starts.html

Among many other factors, strengthened DUI laws, safety regs(including the idea of a speed limit), and seatbelt laws have contributed to a decrease in auto fatalities.

With regard to any issue, you can point to factors other than the one you don't want to see regulated, but part of a comprehensive solution to gun violence involves addressing the ease of obtaining semiautomatic weapons and the resistance to tracking of guns and ammo, as if the risk/benefit ratio comparing "needing a government overthrow" to" epidemic of gun violence" should lead one to be much more concerned about the impending 2nd American revolution that we'll all need to be a part of.

 

[deleted176373]

booze:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/november_december_2012/features/last_call041131.php?page=1

cars:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/09/17/science/driving-safety-in-fits-and-starts.html

Among many other factors, strengthened DUI laws, safety regs(including the idea of a speed limit), and seatbelt laws have contributed to a decrease in auto fatalities.

With regard to any issue, you can point to factors other than the one you don't want to see regulated, but part of a comprehensive solution to gun violence involves addressing the ease of obtaining semiautomatic weapons and the resistance to tracking of guns and ammo, as if the risk/benefit ratio comparing "needing a government overthrow" to" epidemic of gun violence" should lead one to be much more concerned about the impending 2nd American revolution that we'll all need to be a part of.

How about that technology? Crumple zones, air bags, anti-lock breaks, and all sorts of other advancements in automotive crash worthiness. Alcohol was no where near as big of a factor, I was referring to alcohol and automobiles together.... Still a major problem area.

Do I believe that government can help by setting standards, absolutely. Crash worthiness and safety performance standards are useful (some of which is market driven not government driven). Don't think that I cannot see where government has the ability to have a dramatic impact in changing outcomes. Shaping human behavior has not been one of the areas that government has truly excelled in however, and some question as to whether should be attempting to shape the behavior of a "free" people should be natural as well.

I recently (this past weekend) got hit by a vehicle. My injuries required surgery due to the severity of the damage. Does this mean that government regulation failed me? I was wearing all my required safety gear and still suffered broken bones. Should I blame the government for allowing me on the road (or for even building the road)? Where do I take responsibility for managing the risk in my life?

M

 

[roubs]

Policy should be about reducing overall (i.e., population) risk in ways that are guided by evidence & research.

For example, there is a lot of research on firearms (some summaries: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/) -- yet, for some reason, in this area, many are more willing to trust their overriding fear of a hypothetical government takeover than to trust or be guided by more concrete evidence about present realities.

 

[JeyRo]

I'm not sure that gun regulation would cause drug cartels to sprout up and begin a massive war, but I am sure that our current system provides for ~10,000 gun deaths per year, so I'm up for a different approach.

And, respectfully, I don't fully agree w/the "there will always be criminals (or evil) in the world" argument. I agree that they are often lucid people making a choice, but an appeal to personal responsibility doesn't excuse us from taking steps to structure our society in a way that reduces the overall risk of death at the hand of a deranged individual. That argument actually makes me believe in gun regulation more strongly, because if their nature is never going to be the point of interdiction, then a damage control strategy seems more like the right path. When we discuss a person's risk of harming themselves, we know that the most lethal (read: instantaneous death) means need to be discussed, and that the presence of guns greatly increases the risk of a completed suicide. More broadly, it increases the risk of death when someone wants to harm someone.

Events like this are always going to have an emotional impact, but it's unfortunate people all over the political spectrum don't show more thoughtfulness even in the face of a tragedy. Some people do actually want to ban guns or repeal the 2nd amendment, a poorly thought out non-option that gives people on the other side something to react to rather than consider that specific factors should be studied in relation to how they impact risk.

I'm starting to feel like this is morphing into a thread more appropriate for the political forums. Anyways...

So, it's impossible to have a discussion about government regulation of private gun ownership without speaking about it in the context of this horrible incident, so first, again, mass shootings like this in particular (which the media is providing wall-to-wall coverage of, and politicians are all responding to) is an exceedingly rare event, as I indicated earlier - which would necessarily mean that any mass public-policy initiative to address the specifics of these kinds of events tends to impart a high risk of unintended consequences with very little gain.

Here are the facts that are clear to me that tend to indicate that increasing gun regulation (which also includes laws like "gun free school zones" and the like) is probably the wrong way to go as a way to address mass shootings like these. It's also extremely difficult to make the argument that restricting legal gun ownership further would have somehow prevented the Sandy Hook shooting from occurring - obviously as we should all know now, the shooter, Matthew Lanza, was not in legal possession of his weapons (he stole them).

First (as always, depending on how you analyze the numbers) mass shootings in the US do not appear to be on the rise. So, at the same time these are undeniably rare events, they are also not becoming more prevalent:

http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/17/are-mass-shootings-becoming-more-common

Second, shooting deaths (I believe all violent deaths) are dropping in the US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Homicides),

At the same time that there have been clear liberalization of gun laws in the United States - states allowing concealed carry have multiplied, the assault weapons ban lapsed years ago and has yet to be renewed (but it may get renewed now) and the Supreme Court case of Columbia v. Heller, for what it's worth, seems to have codified the trend against increasing gun laws. I don't have a source for this that I'm satisfied with, but I think it's fairly clear that in the last 20-30 years there has been a trend towards liberalization of gun laws, rather then than opposite.

Third, more to the obvious context of mass shootings, while there's a really small number of events to analyze (thankfully) it seems like that the presence of legally armed citizens has the effect of deterring and/or significantly reducing the death rate in mass shooting events:

Sources (give the second one a chance - while obviously not a peer reviewed article, his methodology is utterly transparent and kind of impressive):

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=david_kopel

http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31/auditing-shooting-rampage-statistics/

Again, enacting further barriers to legal gun ownership or possession (short of mass gun confiscation), once you examine the facts of the Sandy Hook case, would not have prevented the shooter from doing what he did. Of course, if there was a technocratic fix were guns could just be made to "go away," perhaps that would have prevented this shooting. But that poses a whole host of other problems.

Finally, there's the whole other area of gun possession as a deterrent to being victimized (e.g., guns as personal protection) - I don't even think it's worth spinning this thread into that area because it's so controversial, but of course I think it's an extremely valid point to make that taking away or making more difficult an otherwise law-abiding person's ability to own a gun has the effect in some cases of removing a person's ability to deter crime.

I'm all for "doing something" about this kind of event. Even though it's a rare event by all measures I'm aware of, I can accept that in order for people to feel safe there needs to be some sort of action to be taken. But I don't think gun regulation (and obviously not confiscation) is the answer - neither do I think the 'Texas option' (which I've heard proposed) of encouraging all teachers to be armed with weapons is the answer either. I think 'gun-free zones' should probably be questioned. I think a discussion about mental health is probably appropriate too - but one that puts the rarity of these kinds of events in proper perspective.

For some mostly thoughtful articles that really help put all of this in proper context:

http://overland.org.au/blogs/new-wo...moment-breaks-gun-control-and-rage-massacres/ (although I disagree with the cheap characterization of Ron Paul as "sinister" and "racist," I agree with pretty much the rest of the article)

http://sociological-eye.blogspot.com/2012/09/clues-to-mass-rampage-killers-deep.html

By the way, not that it matters - I've never owned a gun and I'm not a member of the NRA.

 

[deleted176373]

Policy should be about reducing overall (i.e., population) risk in ways that are guided by evidence & research.

For example, there is a lot of research on firearms (some summaries: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/) -- yet, for some reason, in this area, many are more willing to trust their overriding fear of a hypothetical government takeover than to trust or be guided by more concrete evidence about present realities.

That's a fair point... I don't think that's really what we are seeing occur in the political arena though. If it were, perhaps a more balanced and productive debate would be occurring regarding the merits of gun control would be underway.

In the meantime, I am going to go back to nursing this tibial fracture and hope that the pain medications didn't dis-inhibit me too much as I was writing tonight.

 

[roubs]

re: JeyRo -- I'm going to read the links you posted, but just wanted to say that this kind if rational discussion isn't there on the relevant threads of the political forums

Also, I think there is a strong argument against overreacting, but that specific regulations could be warranted. I think all the evidence you presented should be considered in the debate, and is part of the argument against those further left people from wanting to just "ban guns" -- but it doesn't preclude some changes or additions to gun regulations, and the gun manufacturer lobby has a track record of opposing all changes that are perceived as an "increase" in regs, instead of considering some balanced options.

 

[JeyRo]

booze:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/november_december_2012/features/last_call041131.php?page=1

cars:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/09/17/science/driving-safety-in-fits-and-starts.html

Among many other factors, strengthened DUI laws, safety regs(including the idea of a speed limit), and seatbelt laws have contributed to a decrease in auto fatalities.

With regard to any issue, you can point to factors other than the one you don't want to see regulated, but part of a comprehensive solution to gun violence involves addressing the ease of obtaining semiautomatic weapons and the resistance to tracking of guns and ammo, as if the risk/benefit ratio comparing "needing a government overthrow" to" epidemic of gun violence" should lead one to be much more concerned about the impending 2nd American revolution that we'll all need to be a part of.

There is no "epidemic of gun violence" in the US - unless the argument can be made that steady trend of less gun violence (and violence in general) in the US over the past few decades is somehow an "epidemic."

As an aside, the idea that people should own guns because gun ownership might assist people in "overthrowing" their government is pretty asinine (although some people do believe this, I'm sure). In every way imagineable, the US citizenry is completely outgunned by their government.

 

[cara susanna]

The issue too is that it varies from state to state. Some states have very strict gun regulations, but you could easily go to another state and walk out with a gun that same day.

 

[JeyRo]

re: JeyRo -- I'm going to read the links you posted, but just wanted to say that this kind if rational discussion isn't there on the relevant threads of the political forums

Also, I think there is a strong argument against overreacting, but that specific regulations could be warranted. I think all the evidence you presented should be considered in the debate, and is part of the argument against those further left people from wanting to just "ban guns" -- but it doesn't preclude some changes or additions to gun regulations, and the gun manufacturer lobby has a track record of opposing all changes that are perceived as an "increase" in regs, instead of considering some balanced options.

I would say the evidence I'm looking at does preclude the idea that further government control of private gun ownership is an appropriate response to incidents like this (or gun violence in general).

Just to be completely open about my biases - I'm biased in the sense that I'm on the rather extreme anti-authoritarian end of the spectrum politically (I consider myself voluntaryist / libertarian in my leanings) but I have formerly identified as a mainstream liberal (democrat) a long time ago. I would suspect your politics probably lean towards my wife's somewhat (she's a left-liberal of the Green Party stripe - yes, we have interesting dinner conversations sometimes). So, my moral stance is that people have the right to own tools for self-protection.

 

[cara susanna]

Also, I keep seeing people proposing psych evals before someone is allowed to own a gun. What is everyone's thoughts on that? I'm not sure how useful it would be seeing as how we're not that good at predicting future violence.

 

[JeyRo]

Also, I keep seeing people proposing psych evals before someone is allowed to own a gun. What is everyone's thoughts on that? I'm not sure how useful it would be seeing as how we're not that good at predicting future violence.

Terrible idea. If we could actually reliably predict future violence, maybe it would be one of those areas where my political biases would have to take a backseat. From what I recall studying the subject in graduate school somewhat, psychologists are definitely well-positioned to be experts on forecasting violence (much like meteorologists are experts at forecasting weather) but basing legal gun ownership on what in most cases would be a forecast with a very large error rate seems really questionable to me.

 

[roubs]

There is no "epidemic of gun violence" in the US - unless the argument can be made that steady trend of less gun violence (and violence in general) in the US over the past few decades is somehow an "epidemic."

As an aside, the idea that people should own guns because gun ownership might assist people in "overthrowing" their government is pretty asinine (although some people do believe this, I'm sure). In every way imagineable, the US citizenry is completely outgunned by their government.

I guess it depends on how you conceptualize a stable rate of ~10,000 gun deaths per year. Stable fact of life that requires no action, or problem in need of a solution? Having looked at some graphs, I think one conclusion you can draw is that the expiration of the assault weapons ban in 2004 did not lead to a jump in gun homicides.

From what I've seen on Dianne Feinstein's new proposed assault weapons ban carried a selling point of how it exempts 700 types of assault weapons. To me, this reads that it is not actually an assault weapons ban and is likely to be ineffective. Perhaps the original one was also ineffective because it wasn't strong enough? It's the tactic of watering down regulation so much that it doesn't work and you can point to it's ineffectiveness as further reasons to oppose regulation.

And bringing it back to mental health, there is evidence that existing laws aiming at keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill are not working/being enforced..

 

[ceruleania]

+1

 

[JeyRo]

I guess it depends on how you conceptualize a stable rate of ~10,000 gun deaths per year. Stable fact of life that requires no action, or problem in need of a solution? Having looked at some graphs, I think one conclusion you can draw is that the expiration of the assault weapons ban in 2004 did not lead to a jump in gun homicides.

From what I've seen on Dianne Feinstein's new proposed assault weapons ban carried a selling point of how it exempts 700 types of assault weapons. To me, this reads that it is not actually an assault weapons ban and is likely to be ineffective. Perhaps the original one was also ineffective because it wasn't strong enough? It's the tactic of watering down regulation so much that it doesn't work and you can point to it's ineffectiveness as further reasons to oppose regulation.

And bringing it back to mental health, there is evidence that existing laws aiming at keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill are not working/being enforced..

Are you looking at the same graph I am? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg)

It looks to me like the number of gun deaths in the US haven't been "stable" and they have dropped by nearly 30% since the early 90s, as gun laws have been progressively liberalized in the US (mind you, I am *not* claiming a cause-and-effect relationship here - I think probably a better explanation may be the waning of the crack cocaine craze and associated violence, possibly other sociocultural factors).

You say: "Perhaps the original (assault weapons ban) was also ineffective because it wasn't strong enough? It's the tactic of watering down regulation so much that it doesn't work and you can point to it's ineffectiveness as further reasons to oppose regulation."

Your logic is sound, but the implications of your logic is circular. Or maybe I mean you're offering an un-falsifiable hypothesis as regards technocratic approaches to gun violence - I'm not completely sure. Anyways, here's what I'm saying:

You seem to be arguing the following: increasing state control over people's right to privately own guns is a viable way to address and reduce gun violence, therefore, if after increasing state control, if violence is still a problem, it's because the laws weren't strong enough. The logic can also be applied thusly: if after decreasing state control, if violence is still a problem, then you can simply come to the same conclusion (e.g., that the solution is more state control). Same goes for the argument about keeping guns out of mentall ill people's hands (if that's something we think would be effective) - if laws don't work, then we need more or stronger laws. If there are no laws to address said problem, then we need more laws, etc.

Of course, I think I'm on pretty solid ground making a data-based assertion that gun violence is less of a problem now than it was twenty years ago, and, there's a pretty good argument to be made that state control over private gun ownership has decreased (mildly) as well, so I'm not sure where that leaves you.

 

[roubs]

Also, I keep seeing people proposing psych evals before someone is allowed to own a gun. What is everyone's thoughts on that? I'm not sure how useful it would be seeing as how we're not that good at predicting future violence.

Doing it for everyone who owns a gun is not feasible. But there should be a way to track when people are quickly developing an cache of semi automatics and large capacity magazines. And we should be able to have screenings for people who have access to those. Something like that hasn't been tried before, so I think it's worth developing and figuring out a way to implement it that still allows for legal ownership. The problem is you, again, provoke the fear of "the gov't knows about my stockpile!"

 

[JeyRo]

Doing it for everyone who owns a gun is not feasible. But there should be a way to track when people are quickly developing an cache of semi automatics and large capacity magazines.!

I'm pretty certain that the number of people developing large caches of weaponry (leaving aside what "quickly developing" a cache might be operationalized as) is a far greater number than the number of people who are potential mass shooters.

While I'm not a survivalist by any means (I don't even own a gun, and I barely have 72 hours of food and water stockpiled in my home - although I do invest in silver and bitcoins as a hobby), I think there's a large number of people who do these kinds of things because they see themselves as being 'preppers' - people who want to be well-prepared with protection if / when there's some mass event that might lead to a prolonged breakdown in civil society.

While it's highly debatable how likely any of these events might be, there's a lot of fear in some circles about mass pandemics, hyperinflationary panics, currency crises and other mass disasters and threats. I don't think those people are a threat, by an large, to anyone (although perhaps to their bank accounts).

And we should be able to have screenings for people who have access to those. Something like that hasn't been tried before, so I think it's worth developing and figuring out a way to implement it that still allows for legal ownership. The problem is you, again, provoke the fear of "the gov't knows about my stockpile!"

It provokes a similar fear in me that you'd be inflaming a significant proportion of the gun-owning population without any real basis with a measure like this.

Anyways, I really need to go back to work. But I'm sure I'll be checking in to at least read other posts later (I'm swearing this off for the rest of the day)!

But before I go, I would say that I hope if we're are to keep this discussion appropriate for the professional psychology forum (and rather than the sociopolitical forum) we should try to keep our discussion very closely tied to a data-based perspective.

If we're to propose technocratic, governmental solutions to problems, then they should be based on a targeted approach to an actual problem, rather than a mass, scattershot approach (with all the associated potential for blowback and unintended consequences) to something that might be an extremely small-scale (albeit horrific) problem, or a problem that may even be decreasing in scale and magnitude over time (e.g., again, the incidence of gun deaths in the US dropping since the 1990s).

 

[ResearchGirlie]

Also, I keep seeing people proposing psych evals before someone is allowed to own a gun. What is everyone's thoughts on that? I'm not sure how useful it would be seeing as how we're not that good at predicting future violence.

In addition to further stigmatizing mental illness it seems like a measure that is far too difficult to carry out. Who would do the evals? What would the diagnostic cutoffs be? Can people with an MDD or bipolar disorder disorder get a gun? What about GAD, social phobia, panic disorder? What about those with remitted symptoms?

I have heard it mentioned in connection with this latest incident but it makes me shudder to think about.