As I was finishing up watching last night’s presidential debate, I was about to turn off the TV when the gun control question came up. An audience member asked what each candidate would do to stem the constant gun violence our country experiences.
America has a strange but rich history with guns, since our very country was founded on every citizen being well-armed (since there was nothing close to a national army at the time). I support the 2nd Amendment and any American’s right to “bear arms.”
So I was a little taken aback when Obama said last night, in answer to the question about gun control: “Enforce the laws we’ve already got. Make sure we are keeping the guns out of the hands of criminals… Those who are mentally ill.” Wha… what?!
I agree with the first part — keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is an important (but ultimately an impossible & fruitless) goal. But why were people with a mental illness singled out for greater gun control?
As Gostin & Record (2011) note:
The Gun Control Act of 1968 restricts “prohibited persons” from purchasing firearms, including individuals addicted to controlled substances, those involuntarily committed to a mental institution or adjudicated as incompetent or dangerous, or those who receive a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity.
The Gun Control Act incentivizes states to further regulate by making it a federal offense to sell firearms to individuals whose possession would violate state law. Given the ineffectiveness of current restrictions on access to firearms for “dangerous” individuals with mental illness, the government must improve safeguards against firearms-related violence.
So, I don’t believe Obama was talking about anyone who’s ever had a mental disorder diagnosis — that would include over 25 percent of the population.
I think he meant to say those who fall under the Gun Control Act of 1968 — specifically people who have been involuntarily committed, found by a court to be incompetent or dangerous, or those who’ve already committed a crime but were found not guilty by reason of insanity.
According to Gostin & Record (2011), recent Supreme Court rulings generally push states to “regulate dangerous persons rather than dangerous firearms” but that existing gun restrictions pertaining to individuals with mental illnesses are ineffective.
People with mental illness look very similar to people without a mental illness, especially in their relationship to guns. In a survey of 5,692 individuals in 2008, Ilgen et al. found that:
Individuals with lifetime mental disorders were as likely as those without to have access to a gun (34.1% versus 36.3%; ), carry a gun (4.8% versus 5.0%), or store a gun in an unsafe manner (6.2% versus 7.3%).
An article by Appelbaum & Swanson (2010) looked at the federal and state laws to restrict access to firearms among people with mental illness and found our laws and restrictions have little measurable impact:
The contribution to public safety of these laws is likely to be small because only 3% – 5% of violent acts are attributable to serious mental illness, and most do not involve guns. (Emphasis added.)
The categories of persons with mental illnesses targeted by the laws may not be at higher risk of violence than other subgroups in this population.
In fact, such laws may have a serious unintended, negative consequence, as Applebaum & Swanson note: “The laws may deter people from seeking treatment for fear of losing the right to possess firearms and may reinforce stereotypes of persons with mental illnesses as dangerous.”
There is little point focusing on a problem that doesn’t exist — unless it’s politically popular to suggest you’re going to do something. And that by doing this particular thing — even though it will make little difference — people will think, “Wow, he’s trying to keep those crazies with guns off the street.” The fact is, the vast majority of people on the street with guns are not people with mental illness, therefore focusing on them does little in the way of actually combating the problem of violent crime with guns.
I’m all for keeping guns out of criminals’ hands. But let’s not go over the top and suggest that anyone who’s ever been diagnosed with a mental disorder (and therefore falls into the class of the “mentally ill”) is also unfit to own a gun.
Because that’s a broad generalization that has very little support in the research data.
References
Appelbaum, P.S. & Swanson, J.W. (2010). Gun laws and mental illness: How sensible are the current restrictions? Psychiatric Services, 61, 652-654.
Gostin, L.O. & Record, K.L. (2011). Dangerous people or dangerous weapons access to firearms for persons with mental illness. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 305, 2108-2109.
Ilgen, M.A., Zivin, K., McCammon, R.J. & Valenstein, M. (2008). Mental illness, previous suicidality, and access to guns in the United States. Psychiatric Services, 59, 198-200.
11 comments
Dr. John,
Obama said:
Obama say’s we need to keep guns “out of the hands of criminals AND the mentally ill.”
Obama stigmatized EVERYONE with a mental illness, by making this comment. – COMPLETELY out of line!
Where is the apology???
Obama yes yet to apologize for the comments he made. We can’t afford 4 More years!
I no longer care who gets “stigmatized”, insulted, or offended.
Children are dead; your offense offends me.
If we can prevent this by keeping weapons
“out of the hands of criminals AND the mentally ill.â€
then so be it. Weapons belong to those who can prove themselves competent, responsible, and capable, and no one else.
I do agree with keeping people who’ve been involuntarily commited from buying guns for a limitted time, allowing time for them to stabilize, make sure their meds are working right and not going to have a bad reaction, and for general peace of mind. It should be kept in mind that the vast majority of the mentally ill people, myself included, aren’t violent.
You are giving Obama too much credit. Anyone with educated sensitivity about mental illness wouldn’t have said what he said in the debate. Further, the word “illness” was used, so perhaps the solution to the gun control issue would be to cure the illness by making mental illness a top priority and not one where the funding is planned to be cut. If he thinks that the mentally ill are to blame, then maybe he should fix the mentally ill, and that in turn would fix the gun problem. I was appauled at his 3 references to the mentally ill.
I’m wondering if he was referencing the recent shooting in Colorado movie theature? The suspect is said to have a mental illness.
Thank you for writing this article, my sentiments exactly !!! I was appalled !!
Election or no election, The President of the United States just stigmatized people with mental illness into the category of criminals !! What happened to equality and unbiased attitudes supporting multiculturalism. Mr. President breaking down stereotypes is for ALL groups, not just for a select-few !!!
While restriction on gun control for those who may be a danger to self or others is necessary. It is extremely biased to state it as if all those with mental illness are criminals. Notice his quote … “…keeping the guns out of the hands of criminals, those who are mentally ill.” Oh, so those criminals who are not mentally ill can have guns ?!!
The concern is keeping guns away from criminals. His last statement, “… out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.” Mr. President is lumping all those with mental illness in with criminals. Correction: ” … out of the hands of criminals (regardless of their current mental status).”
You missed the most important part of Scalia’s words: Beyond reducing a group to the, they ignore/violate due process. Each of the above lawyers is aware of the error in language and law. One is a law professor at Yale, and was the first to acknowledge to me the error in language.The third is a law professor at NYU, who at first promised to address it in the law journal he edits, and then declined to do so. Their silence, like that a Penn State, is inexcusable. Parker has a contract with me to address it, but has yet to publicly accomplish.
Fact is that anyone declared by a court of law a danger to himself or others because of a mental illness may not legally own a firearm. The precise wording may vary, but is a court that decides. That Obama’s writers have repeated Scalia’s words is very troubling, but far from unusual. Had the law said “the†Blacks, he would not have missed it, nor would anyone have, including all the clerks at the US Supreme Court and each of the judges there. . It is an example of the habituated use of a word or phrase. It is not the first time Obama ‘s writers have employed that error.A writer for the Washington Post declared it does not matter what the words mark Fisher (?) ,he knows what they mean. He does not.
As it passes by every editor, but one, in the US it is even more troubling. I address it each time it occurs, to date no paper has acknowledge the error as hard news. And no advocacy.
Harold
We’ve had enough of Obama’s out of control spending and comments!
We can’t afford 4 More years! It’s time for Obama to start packing his bags!
“The fact is, the vast majority of people on the street with guns are not people with mental illness…”
You mean they don’t have specific diagnoses? Does that mean they don’t have anything wrong with them? What is the difference between someone with mental illness, a specific diagnosis, and others who have no diagnosis but act destructively? Seriously, what makes some people suffer and others seemingly not, while not being what I would call really emotionally healthy?
How about now?
See the news from Newtown, Conn?
Psycho-Wackos are “DIAGNOSING” children who refuse to eat their spinach & peas as “SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL” for life, and after being “TREATED” with meds & group therapy nonsense….THEY STILL DO NOT LIKE SPINACH & PEAS!