Tag: Gun Control

By on

Every time there is a mass shooting I have this momentary reflexive fear that the killer might be someone who I agree with politically because partisans will say that the problem is the politics of the person and not say something more directly responsible like guns. It matters why the person doing the shooting, did it. But, it doesn’t matter. All mass shootings are bad and the killer’s reasons are irrelevant. You can’t ban white men or trans people for the matter.

No one reason can explain every mass shooter’s motives. The shooter’s politics changes from instance to instance. The killings, however, continue. Of course, the recent shooting at the Minnesota Catholic school have charged partisans up and the problem is either white men or trans men depending on the political agenda of the writer.

Unfortunately, these identifications are unhelpful in helping prevent future mass shootings because the vast majority of white men and trans people aren’t going to shoot Catholic school children praying in church. In fact, 99.9999% of these people will never shoot children at any point whatsoever. So what makes this small number of people break, take up a gun and shoot strangers for no good reason?

The availability of guns is part of the problem. There is very little that can be done here as there is constitutional protection to carry arms, it is difficult to change the Constitution and there isn’t enough public support to even bother. So Gun Laws will not change. Any solution that calls for this is doomed to failure — at least right now. By all means, continue to bang your head against this wall but you are only going to get a bloody head.

These leaves us with addressing the mental health element which is another part of the problem. People who want to kill small children, for whatever reason, are mentally ill. There is no question in my mind and I think most people would agree with that. The question then becomes how do we stop crazy people from using their guns?

The most difficult hurdle to clear would be an acceptance that people need to submit to mental health assessments — particularly young people who are more susceptible to this type of behavior. This also involves a more restrictive take on mental health. Right now most people would say that going for a mental health check up is an option and not a requirement. You are free to be a crazy person — no matter that you are living on public sidewalks, no matter that you are a schizophrenic carry an AK47. Until you are actually hurt someone, you are free to be as crazy as you wish.

Personal rights and public safety are difficult issues to balance. I would argue because we have constitutional protection for gun rights than the government has a responsibility to assess a person’s psychological ability to responsibly carry them. It becomes a health issue instead of a gun rights issue. Every year of high school, every student needs to take a psychological evaluation. Not only could this help with mass shootings but also may help address homelessness, drug addiction and array of other social problem before they become serious problems.

If mental illness is the cause of school shootings then what is the mental health solution? So far the political class seems mired in pointless struggles about gun control and finger pointing at the the other side’s toxic politics neither of which is likely to change. What if we determine that good mental health is a personal responsibility and if we, as a country, can get early intervention with this very small number of people willing to shoot down small children we can address this without affecting anyone’s right to bear arms?

But you don’t have a right to be a crazy person — whether that manifests as shooting up a school or sleeping on public sidewalks.

By on 4 Comments

Conservative columnist Heather MacDonald recently bemoaned the mentally ill people roaming the streets of our city. She describes the failure of civil institutions to protect regular people from these people. Texas Republican Governor Abbott thinks that better mental health care is the solution to mass casualty shootings plaguing his state. Mental Health is the solution to these twin social ills the country is facing.

Better Mental Health certainly would help. The problem is what exactly are the solutions these Mental Health critics offering to meet these problems. Where will these mentally ill people be housed? Who will pay for their housing and medical care? How will their legal rights be protected? How do we identify the mentally ill? What will be the standard for involuntary institutionalization? These all call for the expansion of government oversight and infrastructure. They also all cost money.

How does this happen given the Conservative and Republican distaste for government regulation and taxes? Would they support an increase in taxes to insure that the mentally ill had suitable housing and healthcare? Would they support the psychological testing of gun buyers to determine if they have violent psychological problems? If protecting citizens is the goal, how much money are they willing to spend to achieve this goal? How do they propose protecting citizens from the criminally insane without a massive expansion of mental health and judicial systems? Prisons are not mental health clinics, putting the criminally insane into prisons

It is all well and good to point the finger at the mental health crisis but what are the mental health solutions? There are a lot of unanswered questions. Until these critics provide proposals to address these questions, their criticism is just loud noise to distract from the emptiness of their vision. They have absolutely nothing to offer that will solve these problems.

By on

Florida legislators are discussing further limitations on what teachers can and can not talk to children about. Yesterday they debated whether it is OK to talk about menstruation with girls who are already menstruating. These laws are protecting no one because, as far as I can tell, no one has ever proven that talking about sex with children is damaging. No child has become gay. No child has become a drag queen. You can not groom a person’s sexual nature. There is no danger.

But innocence, you have to protect a child’s innocence. What do you do about children’s legitimate interest in sex? After all, playing doctor isn’t just about the child’s future career options. They want to know where babies come from, why boy’s bodies are different from girls bodies. What is a teacher to do? Refer them to their parents who, by the way, just might tell them about the stork delivering babies instead. Which is, I guess, OK because the child’s all important innocence is preserved even though they are getting incorrect information.

It also creates a stigma regarding conversations about sex that might impede the child feeling free to talk about it. How do you warn children about sexual predators without talking about sex? What it is so important about preserving a child’s innocence? Children need to learn how to take care of themselves and this means a free flow of information is imperative. If a child senses that talking about sex is somehow wrong then how will they feel comfortable talking about it when they have questions? At some point, preserving a child’s innocence is counter productive and is no longer in the child’s best interest.

These same Republican legislators, so worried about preserving children’s innocence, also vigorously defend the right to bear arms. This means that children, for their own safety, must go through drills on what to do if gun man enters their school. How is discussing sex any more dangerous to a child’s innocence than explaining that some day some crazy gun man might start shooting up the school some day and you will need to protect yourself. I suspect that after learning that someone might want to murder them for no good reason that a child’s innocence is pretty much shattered so spare me the concern about a child’s innocence.

By on

The Missouri Legislature voted down a bill that would ban 15 year olds and younger from carrying guns in public places. Gun Rights groups apparently see no limits on who should be allowed to carry a gun. I guess an unsupervised kindergartner can walk down the street with a loaded gun. That kindergartner might have a very good reason for having a loaded gun. How do we know? Why should we prevent a law-abiding six year old from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights? Everyone from birth to old age should just carry a gun and the world would be a better place.

Should everyone carry a gun? Should chronically depressed people carry arms? People with quick tempers? Psychotic people? Aren’t these Missouri Legislators the same people who think adolescents aren’t mature enough to make a decision regarding gender changing operations? If a kid isn’t mature enough to make a decision that requires consultations with doctors, lawyers and parents over a period of time, how can he be mature enough to handle a weapon that requires split second decision making in a crisis situation. There is a disconnect here this is startling.

Young people face all kinds of restrictions because there is an assumption that many underage people are immature for some adult responsibilities. A person has to be 21 years old, for example, to buy alcohol. If a 15 year old walked down the street, holding a bottle of gin, the police could arrest that child for breaking the law. Now there may be a perfectly good reason for that 15 year old to have a bottle of gin. He could be bringing it back to Mom and Dad. But because the state legislature of Missouri have decided that some people under the age of 21 aren’t mature enough to handle alcohol, all people under that age are banned. It is arbitrary. It is unfair to the under 21 who can handle alcohol reasonably. But for the safety of those under 21 and for the general public who might be adversely affected by drunk adolescents, an age barrier to alcohol purchases was made.

Everyone accepts these restrictions with nary a complaint. There may be disputes about where the line should be drawn (aged 21 or 18) but there isn’t much debate that no line should be drawn at all. Right now age, as seen by the majority of citizens in Missouri, is seen as a reasonable marker for this maturity. The same can be said for driving a car. Why then are 15 year olds who’s maturity to drink alcohol and to drive are suspect being allowed to walk the streets unsupervised by an adult with a loaded gun?

The Missouri Legislature’s action on this bill is depressing. If any restriction on gun ownership is seen as an attack on gun rights, then it is hopeless to think there is any meaningful middle ground out there. They are saying that people who are deemed insufficiently mature enough to make decisions regarding alcohol consumption and driving automobiles, are mature enough to walk down a street with an AK47. Why are they better able to handle weapons than a car and alcohol?

The thing here is I, by and large, have surrendered on gun laws. I don’t see the point if the 2nd Amendment trumps any restriction on a person’s capabilities to use guns. However, this law, to me, seemed like a no brainer. Why should an unsupervised 15 year old be walking down the street with a loaded gun. He can’t drive a car. He can’t buy alcohol. And, hey, I am to the point if he is accompanied by one of his parents or a guardian, I am perfectly willing to let him brandish his weapon. But, no, if this minor tweak of the law, which would give law enforcement in high crime areas some legal power to monitor underage gun use, is seen as an attack on the 2nd Amendment, there is simply nothing to talk about anymore. It appears that the gun lobby wants everyone armed from cradle to the grave — regardless of their ability to use guns, their maturity to make decisions and their rationality to use high caliber weapons. To the firing range we must all go.

By on

A seven-year old in Arizona brought guns and ammunition to school the other day. The case is still being investigated but it looks like the only person who is going to get punished is the seven year old. Yes, the boy is getting the book thrown at him while the parents, apparently, are going to walk away scot free. As what happened is still under investigation, this may be the correct decision.

No matter how the investigation turns out this is a troubling incident because is yet another incident of a child getting a gun. If it turns out to be the parent’s unsecured gun then I think the parents need to explain how their child was able to get the gun, smuggled it into his backpack and bring it to school. They are both responsible for the gun and for the child. If they were negligent, they should be prosecuted. If the child obtained the gun from another person other than his parents, then that person is responsible. Rights carry with them responsibilities. If adults are not upholding their responsibilities to the community, then the law must intercede.

I find situations where underage children obtain guns and then accidentally kill themselves or someone else the most unforgivable of crimes. Of course, it is also devastatingly sad. Nobody wanted this to happen. Because of loss of a child is so horrible, there is this tendency to forgive the adult involved because they have suffered enough. What good is sending them to jail going to do when they are already beating themselves up worse than any court can ever do. I get that. I just don’t know what to do then. If parents can’t secure their guns to protect their own children, what can we, as a society, do to encourage them. Right now, all I have is a stiff fine and/or a jail sentence.

But let us also be clear, a child getting a gun is not an accident, it is negligence and criminal negligence needs to be addressed, if for no other reason it is an example for other adults with unsecured guns and children.

By on

I think this is a fair question.

If more restrictive gun laws are impossible to obtain in the present political environment, which is about the only thing everyone can agree to, maybe we can get better mental health care instead. Since many Republicans describe mass killings as a mental health problem, let them prove their concern with better and easier to afford mental health care. Now I don’t buy that gun violence is just a mental health problem but I do agree that anyone who goes into a school and kills 4th graders has a mental health problem.

What causes young men to become a mass killer? Is there anything we as a society can do to stop them? Yes, if we can, ban the type of guns that allow this type of carnage to happen. But there is also a point to addressing the mental health issues that prompt these massacres. These men still are potentially dangerous to others and themselves, if possible, they should be dealt with before they do something horrible.

I don’t understand mass killers. I don’t think anyone does. This isn’t a jealous husband who breaks from the news of his wife’s infidelity. It isn’t a greedy child knocking off his parents because he can no longer wait for them to die to get his inheritance. But to kill a stranger for no particular reason other they are in the class room the killer decided to invade that day, is baffling and frightening. And, most importantly, it is a mental health concern. If there is a way to stop these men before they snap, then we should try to identify them and prevent them from moving forward with their mad plans.

This obviously means that the present mental health system is failing to stop mass killers. The painful truth is American mental health is almost exclusively reactive — we wait until someone breaks before addressing mental health issues. Then we collect the pieces and, if there is enough of a person still there, we work on putting them together again.

A reactive mental health approach is never going to stop mass killers. We would have to take a proactive approach to mental health something are system is in no way prepared to do. Our legal system and our mental health care system would need to be overhauled considerably in order to stop these young men before they begin to shoot. We would have to be able to assess people, take control of their lives and let them know their future freedom is contingent on them changing their behavior. In order to do this, we would also need a place to house our potential killers, drugs and therapy to help change their behavior, and professionals to take on this task of managing the person’s mental health.

This is an enormous and costly task. But, given the array of mental health issues our country face besides mass killings — drug abuse, alcoholism, homelessness, spousal abuse to name a few, the cost would be worth it in numerous ways — less time off from work, less suicide, less emergency room visits, less homeless people in public spaces and, of course, less mass killings.

Therein lies the problem. Money. We are always looking at the costs of doing something right and saying it is too expansive. We can’t afford it. Imagine all the money that Ulvade cost — all of the police resources, emergency room resources, an entire school suddenly unusable, grief stricken parents unable to work, tearing school down because nobody wants to use it, building a new school to replace the torn down school, health care for the wounded who survived, the funeral expenses, and the psychiatric care for the teachers, students and parents. Some Republicans are advocating “hardening” of the schools in order to make it more difficult for mass killers to attack. This would mean that every school in the United States would have to be physically altered. Think of all of those costs and then figure the costs of better mental health care and see which would be cheaper.

The important thing here is that some Republicans are identifying mass killings as a mental health problem. If they are identifying this as a problem, they also need to provide a mental health solution. They can’t say that mental health is a problem and do nothing about it. They are on the hook for at least a discussion of how to get better mental health so these killings don’t happen. Perhaps we can get better mental health care for everyone in the process. It may not be the answer some of us are looking for but something worthwhile could potentially come out of this.

By on

Recently I posted about the unserious solutions that anti-gun control advocates offer whenever there is a mass shooting. In the link below, the Rev. Franklin Graham gives a perfect example of what I am talking about.

Graham: “Ban All Movies, TV Shows, And Video Games” That Depict Violence, Gun Control “Won’t Help Problem”

The Rev. Graham’s solution to gun violence is to eliminate images of gun violence. The images of violence, in his mind, are far more dangerous than the actual weapons of violence. The sheer impracticability of his proposal is apparent from the start. Oddly enough, particularly coming from a Constitutional purist such as the Rev. Graham, the biggest impediment to his idea is the Constitution. The 1st Amendment guarantees the right to free speech. If Rev. Graham wants to ban gun violence in the media he would have to address this ban in context to the Free Speech Amendment. So he would face the same difficult task that gun control advocates now face with the Right to Bear Arms Amendment. Constitutional changes, as advocates of gun control are keenly aware of, are extremely difficult to enact.

Which brings me to workable. I am really scratching my head on how banning gun violence from media is any easier than banning specific high caliber guns. Rev. Graham is not wrong that gun control measures are difficult to enact for both constitutional and popular reasons. But to propose that banning violence in entertainment as a more practical alternate is baffling. It would face exactly the same resistance on constitutional grounds and, as far as I know, nobody, aside from Rev. Graham, wants such a change in the first place. So, how, Rev. Graham is this more workable than gun bans?

And, if people are the problem and not guns, doesn’t the same argument apply to free speech? If there are millions of media consumers who can watch gun violence without engaging in a mass shooting, why should they be restricted because of a few bad apples can’t. Media doesn’t kill people, people kill people. So, then, his ban is unfair.

Then there is the problem of what does he mean by images of gun violence? It is beyond vague. Does he mean images like the famous scene in the movie Bonnie and Clyde where bodies get graphically ripped apart by bullets or does he also include drawing room mysteries were a shot is fired, a man clutches his chest and falls to the ground wounded. Does Rev Graham find one image more offensive? Both? Neither? Images of gun violence are so pervasive in modern culture that censors would be spending years parsing what is and what is not actual gun violence. There is just too much of it around to eliminate, kind of like actual guns in America. For an urgent problem, how workable is that?

Finally, Rev. Graham is wrong. Every other country in the world gets exactly the same violent media images and they don’t have mass shootings like the United States. Why?

To sum it up, the Rev. Graham’s ban is unconstitutional, unpopular, unfair, vague and wrong.

But then, Rev. Graham knows this which is precisely why he proposes it. He knows it will never happen. He will continue to pontificate on the dangers of violent media because it is both an easy target and impossible to implement. It allows him to speak in meaningless bromides that satisfies his congregants while completely sidestepping the problem at hand. It gets him off the hook quite nicely.

By on

I am willing to bite. It doesn’t take a lot of effort for me to believe that anyone willing to go into a school (or store or movie theater or church or any place where large number of people congregate) and shoot strangers has a mental health issue. Republicans are keen on saying it isn’t the gun that is the problem but the person shooting the gun. OK. Fine. What is the mental health solution then?

It gets irritating to hear this response when that person is also unwilling to provide any details on how to make it easier for people to get mental health treatment. Speaking as someone who has been using mental health for some thirty years, I can tell you it isn’t easy. First you absolutely have to have insurance or money. If you don’t have either, you need to apply for some form of assistance — which, unless you are destitute, can be difficult to qualify for. Then, if you do have insurance, there is finding a health care professional that takes your insurance. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t. Sometimes if they do, they only take a limited number of patients who use your insurance. It takes a bit of an effort to come up with a mental health professional to treat you.

Now image yourself in a healthcare crisis having to jump through all these hoops before you can get help. A struggling person is given another struggle to deal with. So, then, how are you going to make make mental health easier to get and less expensive. Oh, and this will cost money. Who exactly is going to pay?

Then there is getting the young man to mental health care. Men are notoriously bad about seeking mental health. They see a stigma associated with it. This means someone is going to have to get scared enough to turn them in or try to convince them to get help. This is where things get hairy. How do you balance the rights of the man with the fears of parents or teachers or friends? Do we have laws that make it even possible? Laws will have to be looked at and changed. What do we do with the young men who are truly dangerous? Do we have institutions to house these young men? And, the all important question, who exactly is going to pay for the process of evaluation and institutionalization? Because you know all this is going to cost money.

When you say it is a mental health problem and offer no way to make mental health more accessible and cheaper, your response is unserious. You are letting yourself off the hook. Mad men are the problem, not guns. OK, so what are you going to do about the mad men? The present system has obviously failed us and needs to be improved in order to catch them. And, by the way, it is going to cost money.

Which, if you ask me, is the real problem here. Republicans can throw that out mental health as a solution after every mass shooting because they are betting that no one will ever call them on how this is done. Which says a lot about both the Republicans and what they think about the American public.

By on

I think it is safe to say that nothing practical is being done to stop future mass shootings.

I recall when mass shootings became a more frequent occurrence that we were cautioned from getting used to the violence. People wanted to avoid normalizing mass shootings because once people thought of them as another part of every day life that people would be inured by them and lose the fight to stop them. I think we are long past this point. I know I am.

I haven’t the faintest idea what to do about mass shootings given the realities of our political system. I once thought that reasonable gun laws would solve the problem. By reasonable, I mean making it illegal to own a semi-automatic weapon. I understand and can accept hunting rifles for sport and hand guns for self-defense but semi-automatic weapons we could all agree served no useful purpose for the general population. Apparently, I was wrong. Gun laws can’t be passed and, at this point, seem irrelevant. How are you going to get the semi-automatic weapons already out there without starting a violent reaction from semi-automatic owners. Yet, after each shooting, this becomes the big push from my friends on the left. Despite the absolute certainty that these gun laws are doomed.

If gun control is dead, at least it was designed with the problem in mind. Limit the number of guns in circulation and then you would limit the number of shootings. The right can only offer bromides which which make them feel good but are essentially unserious solutions. The basic premise is that people are the problem and not the gun. There is a certain degree of sense in that notion but then it leaves unanswered how do we stop people from engaging in mass shootings.

What options do my friends on the right offer? They identify it as a mental health problem. But, then, what is the mental health solution?Nothing is offered but the right’s standard concerns regarding modern society? Bible reading, banning violent movies and violent video games, arming everyone to the hilt so they can fight back. If you say every American is free to have a semi-automatic weapon how can you very well force people to read the bible? Your belief in freedom is at war with itself. Also, I believe that some Bible readers have actually been inspired to try their hand at mass shootings after perusing the good book, so Bible reading is hardly a fool-proof solution but potentially dangerous.

I can only laugh when someone suggests that the violence in video games and movies are the problem. They are saying that images of violence are more dangerous than the weapon itself. Aside from being almost impossible to implement, it is demonstrably false — almost every country in the world sees the same violent images without the same result. And you can’t use the excuse of gun access because there are many different ways of killing someone available to these gunless citizens — poison, knives, automobiles and so forth. If the images of violence caused people to kill wouldn’t we also see more non gun murders in those countries? This is clearly not a serious solution.

Arming everyone so they can fight back is an interesting possibility but we already know it isn’t going to work. I know this because we have a well-armed population now. Why aren’t all these well-armed men with guns stopping mass shootings today? Could it be that most people don’t really have the confidence to engage in a gun fight with a crazy man? It’s more than just shooting a gun, it may be finding the guy when you hear shots, it might be the gunman has a hostage, it might be hundreds of different scenarios that complicate a situation which puts an untrained person in a terrible situation. Well-trained professionals make the wrong decisions under this type of pressure, and you want Joe Citizen to coolly kill a gunman. It is possible but, as we have seen, not a very likely outcome. Finally, what about the gunmen. I know they aren’t the most sympathetic of characters but, at least for me, it isn’t always a showdown between good guys and bad guys; sometimes it is really a good guy facing a schizophrenic off his medication. I would like to think we have a better way of dealing with crazy people than letting the person breakdown and shoot innocent victims until someone can stop him by killing him. But, then, need I remind you, I was completely wrong about gun laws.

So, where does, this leave us. Nowhere really. We all know another mass shooting is coming and no one is making a credible attempt to stop them. Mass shootings have become just another accepted part of modern American life. A terrible inconvenience that comes up every once in awhile. The only thing you can do about it is hope you or someone you love aren’t in the wrong place at the wrong time. And that, my friends, is the terrible truth.