As though a new law would prevent violence, state legislatures across the country are “doing something” about gun violence. The only problem is their focus has been on mental illness, when most murders have little connection with mental illness, and most deaths by guns are not committed by someone with a mental illness.
But it sure makes a legislature feel good about themselves, doesn’t it? “Hey, look, we’re doing something. We’re going to keep guns out of the hands of those crazies.”
Such laws won’t even make a dent in the annual murder rate in the U.S. And at the same time legislators are “doing something,” they are reinforcing the discrimination against those with a mental illness label. Because most of the laws are focused on the labels of mental illness — not actual violent or criminal behavior.
The New York Times has the latest story, which again points out the rude reality — the numbers of people with mental illness committing murders are pretty inconsequential:
But critics say that this focus unfairly singles out people with serious mental illness, who studies indicate are involved in only about 4 percent of violent crimes and are 11 or more times as likely than the general population to be the victims of violent crime. […]
But such killings account for only a tiny fraction of gun homicides in the United States, mental health experts point out.
Besides the research indicating that little violent crime can be linked to perpetrators who are mentally ill, studies show that those crimes are far more likely to involve battery — punching another person, for example — than weapons, which account for only 2 percent of violent crimes committed by the mentally ill.
The reality of murders in the U.S. are simple — they are committed with handguns, they are committed by people who usually know the victim, and the person who commits the murder is rarely someone with mental illness.
The focus of the new laws is basically to remove the constitutional right of Americans with a mental illness diagnose to own a gun. New York state’s new law is quite clear:
New York’s provision, Dr. Monahan said, differs from virtually every other state’s laws in allowing guns to be taken not only from those committed against their will but also from patients who enter treatment voluntarily.
Umm, so maybe people who value their constitutional rights may be less inclined to seek out mental health treatment in the future — especially under the fear that if they say the wrong thing to a health or mental health professional, they may find those rights trampled upon.
Because of this, some criminal justice experts say it makes more sense to pass laws addressing behavior, rather than a diagnosis of mental illness.
In Indiana, for example, firearms can be confiscated from people deemed a potential threat, whether or not they have a mental illness.
Problem is, professionals have a lousy track record of determining what is a legitimate “potential threat.” They almost always err on the side of caution, which results in taking action when no action is needed.
Involuntarily Commitment Threshold Lowered
States also want to make it easier to involuntarily commit people with mental illness. I guess the thinking is, “If we find the crazies with the guns before they use them, and get them treatment (whether they want it or not), they won’t use the guns to kill others.” It’s a pretty shaky line of reasoning there (especially in the service of reducing gun violence).
The threshold of being an imminent danger to oneself or others is now being lowered to simply a belief that there is a “substantial probability” of potential harm to oneself or others.
To me, these are all just legal semantics, because all professionals do is take a guess. Yes, it may be a somewhat educated guess, but it’s a guess nonetheless. And again, professionals will always err on the side of caution, since it’s their neck on the lines.
Mental illness is an easy scapegoat in the national discussion on gun violence. But it’s also a red herring — it has little bearing on stopping the violent acts perpetrated in this country everyday.
So while legislators across the country will pat each other on the back for “doing something” about gun violence, don’t be fooled by their smug assurances. These laws will do nothing to address the prevalence of murders — or murderous rampages — aided by weapons that can raze down dozens before any defensive action can be taken.
Read the full article: Focus on Mental Health Laws to Curb Violence Is Unfair, Some Say
4 comments
I agree. It is so easy to throw the label of mental illness at someone who commits murder. There are those who commit horrendous acts who so seem to show obvious signs of very deep disturbances and true mental illness.
But others are not. They are extremely frustrated, despondent, angry, and in some kind of situation where they see no way out, and they choose a path that makes sense to them. Much the same way someone who commits suicide does.
I do think guns are too readily available and an easy way out, an easy solution. Much like drugs are/were an easy way out of life issues.
So the answer, to me, is something else, something in addition and not just on the far end of the mentally stable spectrum.
We need to teach every child how to problem solve, and keep that dialogue going as life’s problems change and/or grow.
We need to stop glorifying murder as a solution in the entertainment industries.
It’s sad that, in today’s world, stable adults can read of killing and war here and war there (war everywhere!) on television and in the print news media and not be very affected. But the message is, THIS is how we solve problems, or how we retaliate when we don’t get what we want, etc.
I know I am rambling, but I’ll say this and then stop. When was the last time a major network television program was about a stable healthy family, or about nature and animal communities, or about the beautiful earth full of mountains and forests and brooks and singing birds and quiet mornings? Where is some balance?
I would like to add that any centralized list of individuals deemed a threat due to mental health concerns that is available to check before license of firearms would be an incredibly large violation of HIPPA and the new HITECH laws. In this case there would be fines/jail time involved from at least two different federal institutions as well as individual cases brought in civil suits. Civil suits allow for larger sums of money to be extracted from the guilty party than under the other federal institutions. So in addition to what was brought up in the article. This is just a dumb idea.
You said it perfectly Dr Grohol. It is about scapegoating. And politicians will pounce on a group or population who is least likely to retaliate by voting them out of office. The mental health patient population as a whole are less likely to vote, at least ask out loud about mental health concerns as a political stance.
People need to rethink this if mental health care is a primary concern for potential voters, and not just patients, but invested families, significant others, friends, invested peers and employers at jobs, and the providers of this care.
Frankly, I do not think the average incumbent at state and federal levels of government give any concern about the status of mental health care. I am sure there are a few who do, but that is the point, a few.
So, WHEN the next mass shooting occurs, and it is not a person with overt mental health background history, who do politicians target next? Let’s hope it does not involve a minority status.
It is how politicians think. The rigidity and inflexibility of extremist zealots of both parties in the government system dictate public discussions these past 12 years now.
Aren’t you who are moderate and more independent tired of this!?
I have a mental illness of PTSD from infancy, because my parents neglected me as a baby, and I cannot work because of it, and I collect disability. But I am no increased threat to anyone or myself, and I have never committed a crime. I also have never been ruled unfit in any way by a court of law, and therefore I should have the same rights as anyone else.
These gun-laws which ruthlessly and baselessly discriminate against people with mental handicaps, are just medieval barbarism, which violate the Constitution by throwing “the likely suspects” under a bus, in violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments via undue legal process and unequal protection. Essentially the gun-owners want to keep their guns, and so they essentially sell out others in lobbying to allow “mental illness exceptions” in various gun-laws, as a compromise to mollify the anti-gun crowd.
This is the reason Hitler first killed and sterilized the mentally ill, i.e. they were a safe scapegoat that he knew nobody would speak up for.
The US government did the same under the case of Buck vs. Bell, in which the US Supreme Court ruled that states could commit genocide via forced sterilization of people diagnosed mental illnesses, even though they also were no proven threat to themselves or others.
It’s Cuckoo’s Nest syndrome all over again; disarming people on a whim is no different from extermination if they can’t protect themselves, it doesn’t really matter if you’re killed by a government agent or a criminal, dead is dead, and danger is danger.