Mental health and gun violence

The last category of President Obama’s action plan on gun control is mental health and making it more available to the public.  In his plan, he states,

                “Today, less than half of children and adults with diagnosable mental health

problems receive the treatment they need. While the vast majority of Americans with a mental

illness are not violent, several recent mass shootings have highlighted how some cases of mental

illness can develop into crisis situations if individuals do not receive proper treatment.”

A perfect example of this would be the Virginia Tech Massacre of 2007.  Seung-Hui Cho was a senior student at Virginia Tech when he killed 32 people (33 including himself), injured 17, and 6 others were injured from jumping from windows to escape.  Just a few years before that in December of 2005, Cho was found "mentally ill and in need of hospitalization" by New River Valley Community Services Board.  Based on this mental health examination and because Cho was suspected of being "an imminent danger to himself or others", he was detained temporarily at Carillion St. Albans Behavioral Health Center in Radford, Virginia, pending a commitment hearing before the Montgomery County, Virginia district court.  He used a Glock 19 and a Walther .22 caliber pistol; the shocking part of it all? 

 

He passed background checks for both guns.

               

                “Virginia state law on mental health disqualifications to firearms purchases, however, is worded slightly differently from the federal statute. So the form that Virginia courts use to notify state police about a mental health disqualification addresses only the state criteria, which list two potential categories that would warrant notification to the state police: someone who was "involuntarily committed" or ruled mentally "incapacitated.”(Wikipedia)  This means that since he went to the mental health center “voluntarily”, he was never disqualified from purchasing a gun under the Brady Act.  It was also argued that while in professional care (voluntary or not) health professionals had previously stated Cho was a direct threat to himself and others, and he had been "adjudicated as a mental defective" and not reporting this to the state was in non-compliance with federal law.  Via federal law, this would have disqualified him from ever purchasing a gun. 

                If we make mental health more available to the public, and our mental health professionals actually follow through with their legal obligations to not only state laws but federal laws too, less people will fall through the cracks of our laws put in place to keep America safe.  As of right now, it is not required for states to report mental health records to the NICS, and the NICS only have about 20% of the mental health information they should.  In 1991, 2.1 million people had been involuntarily committed to a mental health institution; in that year, the NICS had record of only 402,000 people disqualified from gun ownership due to mental health issues.  This is an alarming number, and in just one case slipping through the cracks, 33 people died.

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/10/politics/background-checks-mass-shootings

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/local/mental-health.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seung-Hui_Cho#Court-ordered_psychiatric_assessment

 

Mental health impact

The Virginia Tech shooting clearly illuminates the flaws in our background check system, more specifically on the question of a person’s mental health.  The Gun Control Act we currently have in place restricts people from purchasing a firearm if they have been involuntarily committed to a mental hospital or adjudicated as a mental defective (which today has almost no clinical meaning and is offensive).  With such an obvious loophole in the area of mental health, it seems as though it should be easy to mend this, right?  The main thing to think about is how do we amend the disqualifications?  What happens when we do?

When talking about people with severe mental illness, we must keep in mind that it is a statistically rare and virtually unpredictable event.  Furthermore, even when comparing crimes committed by people with mental illness only chalks up to 3-5% of all total crimes (not just gun-related crimes).  So what could we change?  What could make it so that people like Cho don’t slip through the loopholes of background checks?  If we change the restrictions to anyone with a mental illness or on medication cannot purchase a firearm?  That would be a huge part of the U.S. being restricted; keeping in mind that depression is considered a mental illness.

                “Mental disorders are common in the United States and internationally. An estimated 26.2 percent of Americans ages 18 and older — about one in four adults — suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year.¹ When applied to the 2004 U.S. Census residential population estimate for ages 18 and older, this figure translates to 57.7 million people.”  According to the National Institute of Mental Illness.  If we put ‘flags’ on people because they have a treatable mental health issue, what would that do to the person?  That’s like saying a person is never allowed to go outside again once they get the chicken pox, because it is contagious when you have it.  It’s absurd!  This would cause a sense of alienation, loss of privacy, and could potentially cause someone to not seek help for a treatable health condition without the “social cost”.  The right to privacy is there for a reason, and with so many conditions being considered a mental illness, it is hard to put specific guidelines on what needs to be shared.  Gun violence in mental health patients is practically impossible to predict who to watch more closely.

http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1707738

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16877653

 

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=sQxNVhV-W7oC&oi=fnd&pg=PA33&dq=mental+health+and+gun+violence&ots=M_ct8DHYdx&sig=S8A32P9SIB49APZLnnHYcq0Ruks#v=onepage&q=mental%20health%20and%20gun%20violence&f=false  pg 33

No more school shootings

One major area President Obama is targeting to reduce gun violence is in our education system and our youth. We hear about school shootings in the news, but do you know exactly how bad it is?  A school shooting is defined as “an incident where a firearm was discharged at a school infrastructure, including incidents of shootings on a school bus or near school property while school is in session” according to Wikipedia.  In the past ten years, there have been over 70 school shootings, and only 23 of those had no fatalities.  This is an alarmingly high number, and only the truly cruel school shootings get their 15 minutes of fame across the nation on the news.  Isn’t that what they want?  Attention?  School shooters are seeking it in the most brutal ways possible, but we are giving it to them!  We are giving in to what they want.  Is it not going too far to say that plastering these tragedies all over the media is establishing a precedent for later shootings?  That future school shooters will try to copy-cat a former shooting because it got media coverage?

                So how does this get fixed President Obama?  How do we make the schools safe for children?  In this section of his plan, he states,

                “The Administration is calling on Congress to help schools hire up to 1,000 more school resource officers, school psychologists, social workers, and counselors, as well as make other investments in school safety. We also need to make sure every school has a comprehensive emergency management plan so they are prepared to respond to situations like mass shootings. In addition, the Administration is proposing to help 8,000 schools put in place proven strategies to prevent violence and improve school climate by reducing bullying, drug abuse, violence, and other problem behaviors.”

So more counselors, more officers and more plans; it all sounds like it will work, right?  But let’s get down to the real question- how are we going to pay for all of this?  Does President Obama have some magic pot of gold we didn’t know about?  The money that this plan takes to execute is really starting add up, my hope is we don’t have to sacrifice any of the aspects of this plan that can really do some good.

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4614-5526-4_12#page-1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States#List_of_U.S._school_attacks

http://www.google.com/aclk?sa=L&ai=C5RW_NSf8UaSsLYbCiwLunoCwCPus4LcD0_fcyXGe39QWCAAQAVDYtM4GYMmmgYzMpNQZyAEBqgQiT9CEeI4IjCDf_jqe_DOWVhwEYwsrgOK5l6hEPuYnwKbNQroFEwju7Kzq3N-4AhWlZEIKHdljAAbKBQCAB5OlsB4&ei=NSf8Ua7-KqXJiQLZx4Ew&sig=AOD64_3OqRcEmdac6Tv2Bv9m_mCTAaK9Bg&rct=j&frm=1&q=national+debt+2013&sqi=2&ved=0CC8Q0Qw&adurl=http://www.concordcoalition.org/issue-page/national-debt

Gun control is out of control

Now to be the gun-slinging second amendment gun rights advocate; assault weapons don’t need to be banned!  I’m going to (again) quote Bill Whittle in his speech on gun control:

“In 2011, the total number of firearm murders came to about 8,583 according the FBI.  Now during that time, the total number of murders by rifles, ALL rifles not just semi-automatic rifles, were 324.  Now that is only 3% of all murders, hammers and clubs kill half as many as rifles, hands and feet kill twice as many, and knives kill five times as many people than all rifles combined.  Preventative medical errors kill about 98,000 people a year, medical malpractice kills twelve times as many people that are murdered each year and three hundred times more than all rifles combined; and yet, no one talks about limits on hammers or knives or doctors.  And no one does that because the good we perceive from hammers or knives or doctors far outweigh their harm.  Studies show that firearms prevent anywhere from 800,000 to 2 million violent crimes each year.  The lowest estimate means that 100 times more violent crimes were prevented with firearms than the total number of crimes committed with firearms.”

This again brings up back to the statement that we don’t want to ban guns, we want to ban violence.

Another loophole in banning assault weapons is simple; if semi-automatic rifles should be out of the hands of citizens because “they are dangerous” or “they serve no purpose to civilians” then why is it legal to buy silencers and fully automatic weapons?  I’ll tell you why- because the government slapped a $200 tax on silencers and fully automatic weapons!  It’s all about profit, no one higher up benefits from semi-automatics, and these rare statistics we plaster all over the news gives them a way to ban something that doesn’t them.  I would not be surprised if they “compromised” with us and slapped a $200 tax and 6 months of paperwork on these rifles.

                Now, is there anywhere that lack of gun control does work?  Yes!  In the Youtube video I showed in my post for banning assault weapons John Oliver speaks with the Prime Minister or Australia who reformed their gun control after a massacre in Port Arthur.  This clip also brings up a very good point against gun control; Australia has no gun control since a huge massacre in a place called Port Arthur 17 years ago and there has not been one massacre since(a massacre being killing more than 4 people)!  As opposed to the 18 years before that, there had been 13 massacres.  Now while the gun rights advocate in my clip is saying that “back here in the real world that wouldn’t work.”  Is Australia some fairy tale land with unicorns and leprechauns?  No- it is a real place and who is to say that our crime wouldn’t change if we took out our gun control?  But of course no one in congress thinks of that in “real people land”.

Assault weapons are not the problem and we all know that, whether or not it serves a specific purpose is not the point.  “Recreational” is what we do with our time(as long as it’s legal).  If I want to go to Brown’s Camp and shoot at a dirt wall with my AR-15 for 5 hours then I should be able to!

Assault weapons aren't necessary

The second category in President Obama’s plan is banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines.  Now while there are both sides to the argument (many people might not think there is), I will be covering the positives.

Let’s first remember back to the period when there was previously an assault weapons ban; 1994-2004 assault weapons and high capacity magazines were illegal for civilian use.  Did it work?  In the previous ban, crimes by assault weapons decreased by 66% nationwide.  In 1993(the year before the ban was passed), crimes by assault weapons was 3.67%, which dropped in 2001 to a measly 1.1%.  this doesn’t seem like much, but if you think about it, if three people were 3% of victims of crimes, you’re saving 2 of those people with this ban.

In Massachusetts, an assault weapons ban is already put in place. Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney said, "they have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people."  Which is correct!  Assault weapons were made to be military combat weapons, made for killing a lot of people faster.

Who gains from these weapons being legal?  Criminals mostly, they are not suitable for self-defense, and since they fire so many shots so fast, it is more likely you will accidentally shoot an innocent bystander if you are not a perfect shot.  The argument “criminals will get it some way or another” is not a valid argument; that is not what laws control.  It controls law-abiding citizens, and they have no need for these weapons.  If we based every law off of the criminal statement I made above, no laws would be passed!  But even if it makes it just a little harder for criminals to acquire these guns, isn’t it worth it?  I recently watched the Daily show with John Stewart, and they had a very funny clip where they were talking to a gun rights advocate, I encourage you to watch it.

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pOiOhxujsE

The last argument for banning these weapons is they are not suitable for recreational use.  You don’t use them to go hunting, or trap shooting, or other recreational activities.

Now let's reflect on the positives I have stated while we click on my next blog talking about the negatives.

 

Thinking it Through

Sadly, now it is time for the bad news; the flaws to this section of President Obama’s action plan.  Forgive me if I am a little harsh, but I was pretty nice in my last post so I have to keep some form of balance.

One of the more spotty areas of closing the gaps on background checks is “Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system” including any personal information that disqualifies you from purchasing a firearm.  Only a few things will cause you to be rejected from purchasing a firearm; these include:

·         Felons

·         Fugitives from justice

·         Anyone who unlawfully uses any illegal drug, including marijuana

·         The mentally ill (as determined by a court) or someone who has been committed to a mental institution

·         Illegal aliens

·         Those dishonorably discharged

·         Anyone who renounced U.S. citizenship

·         Those under a restraining order for harassment, stalking or threatening a partner

·         Those convicted of domestic violence, including misdemeanor

According to William La Jeunesse from Fox News, the two largest gaps in the NICS record-keeping database is drug use and mental illness, even AFTER the Virginia Tech shooting, where the student passed a background check for a firearm after a judge had legally deemed him mentally ill.  How was this gap in records not a focus 6 years ago?  Just how many massacres need to happen before we think, “Hey, this is a serious loophole.”? 

                As far as “giving incentives” to states for providing this crucial information implies choice to me.  Why would a state do something that takes time and money and is a lot of work if they have the choice not to?  It needs to be non-negotiable. 

A 55-page report went on to blast the states and federal government for failing to meet congressional expectations.

It found, out of 1.1 million mental health records submitted from 2004 to 2011:  

• 23 states and the District of Columbia had submitted fewer than 100 mental health records to the federal database.
• 17 states had submitted fewer than 10 mental health records.
• Four states had not submitted any.

These statistics are more than pathetic.  Like mental health records, the Government Accountability Office found drug violations are also under-reported. The agency said most states are not informing the FBI (which is where the NICS gets their information) of failed drug tests, as the federal background check law requires. It found:

• 44 states had submitted fewer than 10 records to the NICS controlled-substance file.
• 33 states had not submitted any records even though the law bars anyone with multiple arrests for drug use or possession within the past five years, or those convicted for use or possession within the last year, including marijuana. Yet the report found states with lengthy registries of medical pot smokers did not provide that information to the NICS system.

In the spirit of “giving incentives” you would think there are negative outcomes if a state doesn’t comply, right?  The Department of Justice has the power to give and take away funding for states compliance and non-compliance.  The GAO audit found the DOJ forked out more than $25 million in grants, but did not penalize one state for non-compliance.  This isn’t very surprising to me though, it is consistent with how our President handles situations, I’m not sure he knows what “taking away funding” actually means.

        The last portion of this category will be a brief stab at an obvious(and a little humorous) flaw.  In President Obama’s action plan, under background checks, his last paragraph talks about, “Make sure dangerous people are prohibited from having guns:”  DUH!!  Does this even need to be stated?  Maybe he put that paragraph in in case we forgot what we were reading about a quarter of the way through.

        In the category “Closing the Loopholes in Background Checks” there are some great ideas on closing the gaps that a lot of criminals can normally slip through, but there are some serious inconsistencies that need a lot more though put into them.

 

 

               

 

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=sQxNVhV-W7oC&oi=fnd&pg=PA95&dq=closing+loopholes+in+background+checks&ots=M_crbzITgu&sig=KSeXoMlaqszlYkEYqmmVQ0XtWPc#v=onepage&q=closing%20loopholes%20in%20background%20checks&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=sQxNVhV-W7oC&oi=fnd&pg=PA33&dq=how+to+make+mental+health+information+available+for+gun+control&ots=M_crbAFXev&sig=ZDgrzmu9laggJ5DcaZha7gCWmXQ#v=onepage&q=how%20to%20make%20mental%20health%20information%20available%20for%20gun%20control&f=false

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/29/gun-debate-lawmakers-eye-troubled-background-check-system/

Closing the Gaps

In President Obama’s action plan, there are four general categories that will be focused on to lower gun violence in America; closing loopholes in background checks, banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines, making schools safer, and making mental health more readily available.  Since we are discussing the strengths and weaknesses of his plan, I feel that a “good news – bad news” style is appropriate.  This week we will cover the strengths and weaknesses of their efforts to close the loopholes in background checks.  Let’s start gentle; we’ll discuss the strengths first.

                One of the first things stated in Obama’s action plan is to require background checks for all gun sales.  Sounds pretty straight forward right?  As of right now, it is legal for people to sell their personal collection themselves, it is called ‘private party sale’, and no paperwork or background checks are required.  As much as 40% of all gun sales are done through private party sales and are completely legal.  How do we fix this you ask?  Some states have already made progress on this issue, going past the federal regulations on background checks for firearms, as shown in this chart below:

In states on this chart like California, there are regulations on all gun sales, so if a private party wishes to sell their firearm, they must do so through a licensed vendor.  They can go in, drop it off and at some point a buyer will acquire it though the licensed dealer with proper paperwork.  There is no requirement that the buyer and seller have to be there at the same time, it just has to be done through a licensed dealer.  Some vendors even have a separate wall for guns being sold from a private party.  Most retail stores that are selling guns for private parties charge a fee for selling the gun, which is understandable.  It may be a small inconvenience to private parties, but if all 50 states enact these laws, it –in theory- can lower the opportunities for unfit people to acquire firearms.

 In the 33 states with just federal background check regulations, both private parties and licensed retailers can rent table space at a gun show, but only the retailers run background checks.  Between 25% and 50% of table space is for private party sales, and most of the time they hold signs out that say, ‘private sales’.   This implies no identification or paperwork is necessary, which is incentive to buy from a private party if you are a criminal or cannot legally acquire one with a proper background check; thus, you have a ‘Gun Show Loophole’.  In these 17 states with extra regulation, there is no gun-show loophole.  Private parties can still rent table space at gun shows, but designated licensed retailers act as transfer agents during sales so background checks can still be ran.  If all of the states pick up on extra background check regulations, there will be less opportunities for criminals to acquire firearms legally.

                If we put the proper laws in place to make sure they work properly, excluding ‘common sense’  exchanges through family, I think this will be a very successful part of President Obama’s action plan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=sQxNVhV-W7oC&oi=fnd&pg=PA95&dq=closing+loopholes+in+background+checks&ots=M_crbzITgu&sig=KSeXoMlaqszlYkEYqmmVQ0XtWPc#v=onepage&q=closing%20loopholes%20in%20background%20checks&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=sQxNVhV-W7oC&oi=fnd&pg=PA33&dq=how+to+make+mental+health+information+available+for+gun+control&ots=M_crbAFXev&sig=ZDgrzmu9laggJ5DcaZha7gCWmXQ#v=onepage&q=how%20to%20make%20mental%20health%20information%20available%20for%20gun%20control&f=false

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/29/gun-debate-lawmakers-eye-troubled-background-check-system/