On Tuesday, January 15, society was met with news that may bring hope to some. But others may encounter problems rather than hope as a result. New York legislators passed a gun control bill requiring mental health therapists who believe their client has the potential to become violent to report to law enforcement that the individual has weapons that need to be confiscated.
As a firm believer in gun control laws and restrictions on violent video games, I am in favor of an in-depth conversation on legislative reform. However, as I read multiple reports on the passing of this new law, I began to question whether this legislative act will actually remedy gun violence. I pondered whether the confiscation of weapons from an individual deemed mentally impaired could lead to more problems than expected.
Severe, untreated mental illness is a complex phenomenon, and dealing with it can be quite a challenge. I have identified three issues that should prompt further consideration before such gun laws are implemented in other states.
Before posting, please read our blog moderation guidelines. The comments below begin with the oldest comments first. Click on the last comments page to jump to the most recent comments.
Before posting, please read our blog moderation guidelines.
Post a Comment:
Copyright © 1995-2013 Psych Central. All rights reserved.
Site last updated: 19 May 2013
|
Excellent.
Hi David:
Thank you! It is a tough conversation and many people do not want to hear this side of the coin.
Have you seen the research that came out just before the election about emotionality and analytical thinking?
When we focus on the emotional the ability analyze disappears. Vice versa is true, too.
The more emotional it becomes, the less we can understand. This is why both sides of the ‘debate’ are using children. “THINK OF THE CHILDREN” is a common theme that disables analysis.
If we can recognize this – we can overcome it in our attempt to understand.
One of the central messages of those who are pro gun control is that the guns still flow into no gun zones due to the proliferation outside the zones. In this case, zones are cities or states. Chicago/DC and New York/California are the best examples.
However, gun control can only be defined accurately as maintaining control over where the barrel is pointed.
If we correctly define this debate as penalties for gun ownership, brandishing or use then the fact that Chicago has such a high gun murder rate has NOTHING to do with the penalties. Those who seek to end life with guns do not care about the penalties.
When we understand the efficacy of gun penalties is near 0% for the felon population then this changes the debate.
So contrast this with the rate of violence in those who have mental illness. Felons represent over 75% of the shooters. What about those with mental illness? Much less. I will have to work to cite this, but it is based upon recent research that I follow.
If efficacy of gun penalties cannot be proven, shouldn’t we change the debate?
Thanks
Hi Metacognition:
I agree with your 1st post and appreciate your attempt at balancing the perspective with this 1st post. I agree that both sides are “using children” to support their emotional decisions.
Unfortunately, children have to be included as a catalyst for change because nothing else hits at the heart strings of America, Politicians (who themselves have children), or those with power to reform but the discussion of children. Children are precious (which is why I work with them!) and many people simply want to protect them.
However, from a more objective/analytic perspective, the discussion on gun control is just beginning because there are areas that have not been discussed. For example, it is still unclear how we are going to maintain objectivity in counseling certain patients if we believe a patient has the potential to kill, how we are going to monitor unregistered guns, and be sure that we can confiscate ALL guns from an individual. Some people are gun collectors.
Emotion has pushed America into acting on fear. Some of this is good, some not so good.
If we can’t define insane versus evil, but we know evil when we see it – Can we at least debate combating evil?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/indo-pak_2008.htm
This is the background to a longstanding issue. It almost brought war to Pakistan and India – AGAIN.
Almost 200 people lost their lives. Jews were racially targeted. If this attack happened in the United States, two things could happen.
Chicago – Cops, SWAT and National Guard would be called in. Think the ending of Blues Brothers. Before the long rifles were deployed and shooters identified – many Chicagoans would lose their lives.
Boise – Texts would spread throughout the city and many Americans would load their AR and AK rifles and 30 round magazines. Any shooter who encountered an American would be targeted by trained shooters. National Guard MIGHT be called out.
If the proximity of Mumbai makes one feel safety – consider that the planner/financer of the attack was in Chicago. Just convicted, today.
http://www.fbi.gov/chicago/press-releases/2013/tahawwur-rana-sentenced-to-14-years-in-prison-for-supporting-pakistani-terror-group-and-terror-plot-in-denmark
You are closer to armed militants dedicated to your destruction than you believe.
They are already here.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/25/congresswoman-raises-red-flag-hezbollah-cartel-nexus-border/
The fact it is Fox News shouldn’t discount that the Congresswoman has citations to back up her claims I cite.
Hezbollah is operating within our borders thanks to the Mexican Narco terrorist drug tunnels infiltrating hundreds of meters into our country. They have free access.
A Mumbai style attack within our borders would be an act of war. India decided to use the criminal justice system. Would we?
The fact is – denying Americans the right to use rifles, shutting down the rifle industry and denying our law enforcement access to the same equipment is to enable foreign backed militant terrorists who have proven their capabilities.
I think the New York law is just looking for grunts and scapegoats. Politicians have no real interest in promoting responsible and appropriate mental health interventions. Come on, really, by alleged representatives who embrace narcissistic and, in my professional opinion, antisocial traits? Maybe people should read up on what are the features to these two personality disorders, and then step back and see if they fit a sizeable portion of state and federal representatives.
Leadership is not about self, but the group. Who is focused on doing their job and not just keeping their job? And it starts with the man at the top.
Really, think about it. Why did this have to wait for 20 children to die? When you lead, you do what is right, not what is convenient or easy.
It is time for mental health providers to take a stand and do our jobs as trained, not dictated by puppet leaders!
Thank you Joel for your post. It’s very saddening to consider that laws should have been implemented years ago but weren’t until tragedy struck at home.
Your post reminded me of a book I once read titled:
The Psychopath Test: A Journey Through the Madness Industry by Jon Ronson