Random Mass Shootings, Gun Control and Mental Illness

This sign is symptomatic of the problem. We would love to be able to say all of the above are true, but it's not as easy as making a sign or a law saying something is so and then sleeping well at night believing that what the sign or law says reflects the realities of life. The fact is if you go to almost any school in the land that has one of these signs, you want have to look very hard or far to find out that what is posted just isn't so.

That's the easy part, identifying the problem. Next step, FIXING IT!!

I agree with this Newtown Dad speaking out when he says the answers "appear" to be so deceptively easy on the surface. But we make them complex by our failure to, first and foremost, take a long, hard look in the mirror and realize that some of the "answers" we thought we had right before in our culture, are increasingly found to be "dead wrong". And I don't use that phrase frivolously in this context.

We continue down the path of denial at our own continuing risk.

Newtown Father Speaks out on Gun Laws

from freedomoutpost.com
http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/father-of-slain-6-year-old-sandy-hook-victim-gun-laws-are-not-the-problem/

In an emotional testimony, Mattioli said that more gun laws would not solve the problem and that politicians who try and proclaim that the issue is “complex.” He believes there is simply a lack of civility and that “what we are seeing are symptoms of a bigger problem. This is a symptom. The problem is not gun laws. The problem is a lack of civility.”

“We need civility,” he said. “We need common decency to prevail.”

Given the cultural differences of city vs. suburbs vs. rural living - One size fits all approach does not work

The culture is really the culprit here. 

The entire culture, not just the gun culture.  

Society at-large is increasingly going crazy. 

Mental Illness is much more widespread than recognized.

Much of what passes as normal today is just bat-poop crazy.

The overall homicide rate in the US peaked between 1975-1990 at just over 10 per 100K population.

In recent years,  it has decreased to between 5.5 - 6 per 100K. 

Overall violent crime has also fallen significantly during the time period.

Perhaps incarcerating many of the so-called "rational" criminals (gang members and career criminals) we are somehow missing the random crazies that walk among us until they perpetrate crimes like Columbine or VA Tech.

We need practical discussions about practical solutions. 

The drop in US violent crime is generally attributed to massive incarceration. 

The US already incarcerates a larger % of its population than any other advanced nation on earth. 

We used to institutionalize the mentally ill as well. But now we leave them primarily alone in the community, where they eventually become homeless or a danger to themselves or to others.

Deinstitutionalization - One size approach does not work

The consistent pattern since the 1960's with random mass shootings is mental illness. 

The phenomena of mass random shootings had its beginnings in the 1960s. 

It was as a result of one of the worst public policy ideas of the decade -- mass deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill population. 

Kennedy began the movement, Carter picked up the ball and carried it over the goal line. 

This led to the modern homelessness problem. 

In the 1980's, we all asked where the homeless were coming from and the answer was "Must be Reagonomics!" 

Now we know better. 

In the upper-middle class suburbs -- seemingly far removed from the inner city and the violence of drug wars and gangs -- it led to the phenomenon of random mass shootings. 

This problem seemingly didn't exist before the 60's -- at least not in magnitude -- because it was accepted that crazy people were to be under psychiatric supervision. Gun legislation was weaker then by comparison. 

De-institutionalization was a great idea, in theory. In practice not so much. 

The problem was that there were no real comprehensive plans for "support" in how to effectively serve people coming from institutions to the communities.

Budgets for mental health programs have been subject to the vulgarities of the budgeting process.  

Treating Mental Illness - One size fits all approach does not work

The mentally ill are now passed along from homeless shelters to halfway houses to local prisons for sporadic treatment at best. 

If they're on their medications, they're manageable, if not....

Part of the problem is that treating illnesses like schizophrenia or bipolar disorders are fairly manageable in the community only if those people are in group homes, and they are closely monitored to take their medication and receive clinical support.

 If people with severe mental disorders are not closely monitored in professional settings, they often don't take their medications and their conditions deteriorate to a point where they become a danger to themselves or others. 

People with less severe mental disorders -- what would have been classified as neuroses in the past -- seem to do well without closer monitoring. 

So some have benefited from the process of deinstitutionlization, but clearly some have not. 

School have become drug-free zones, except to handle "behavioral issues"

We have turned disciplinary issues in the schools over to Big Pharma and the psychiatrists. 

Kids are calmed down with meds instead of detention or clapping erasers or any one of a number of methods used in the past to burn off excess energy and hyper-activity that kids inherently possess.

We bought into the "better living through chemistry" approach.

There is no "magic pill" to deal with the vagaries of growing up.  

The Universal Background Check Problem - One size fits all approach does not work

It is difficult to predict behavior.  If a given behavior has never manifested itself before, it is anyone's guess whether it will ever manifest itself. 

In terms of behavior, if something happens once, it's more likely to happen again within the context of a given individual's life. 

Unfortunately, the "once" may be so dangerous and tragic that society can not risk it happening a second time. 

So the question becomes, how do we balance public safety with the fundamental rights of the individual without treating innocent people unfairly. 

You certainly cannot punish someone on the basis of what they might do

You also cannot punish an entire class of people on the basis of the actions of a minority of people withing that class.

 That's the definition of prejudice and stereotypes.

We don't have effective treatments for serious mental illness, but at least we can detect seriously disturbed people earlier and put them under supervision or keep them out of general population without stigmatizing. 

Discussing options like that might offer practical solutions.

Mental Health, Mental Illness and Addiction:

Overview of Policies and Programs in Canada

Report 1

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/381/soci/rep/report1/repintnov04vol1part3-e.htm

CHAPTER 7:

Mental Health Service Delivery And Addiction Treatment In Canada: An Historical Perspective

INTRODUCTION

The history of mental health services and addiction treatment in Canada parallels the European and American experience.  The delivery of mental health services has, for the most part, evolved differently from the provision of addiction treatment throughout the last century.  This has led to the emergence of two distinct systems of care and support – one for individuals with mental illness and another for individuals suffering from addiction.  It is only during the last decade that efforts have been encouraged to better integrate the two systems.

The mental health service system and the addiction treatment system have struggled to provide the most compassionate and responsive treatment possible, but both have been dogged by the problem of stigma which had a negative impact on their development.  Arising out of widespread misunderstanding and broad misconceptions, individuals with mental illness were often labelled as “idiots”, “imbeciles” and “lunatics”, while addiction problems were perceived as a sign of personal weakness.  In some cases, a punitive attitude, exemplified by a desire to remove individuals with mental illness and addiction from public sight, has hampered the delivery of appropriate services.  Despite many advances in models of care, policies and legislation, negative perception and stigma still persist today (see Chapter 3, above).