Is the problem one of gun control or is the problem one of having ways of dealing with mental health issues?
I’m sure the answer is “both” but does one of them weigh more heavily than the other?
Most of the gun deaths in the US are suicides. If you define wanting to commit suicide as a mental health issue, then that is more the issue than mentally ill people shooting someone else.
Regards,
Shodan
If you’re talking about gun violence, does blaming it on our ways of dealing with mental health issues unnecessarily stigmatize the mentally ill?
So we just ignore it?
Which one of them is the more capable of a quick, effective solution that is easier to maintain into the future?
How about the suicidal people who might not have acted on their (often drunken) impulse if they did not have the quick and easy means to do so?
Important to not only see mental health as only a continuum. Plenty of people drop into despair and then find a way out, even hours later, often with help.
That’s why the ‘gun solution’ is so sad. Hell of a lot more determination goes into hanging yourself, by which time you have likely regained some perspective.
One point that is not raised in the media after mass shootings.
They address issues around whatever current shooting has occurred, diligently noting that screening for mental disease wouldn’t have helped in this or that situation (shooter wasn’t diagnosed, shooter “borrowed” guns from someone else, etc).
They don’t address the issue of the shooter who acquires guns while sane, then goes off the deep end (which is my pet theory for Las Vegas shooter).
Given that our government has accepted our current chronic level of gun death, punctuated by occasional mass shootings, as the “cost” of protecting our Second Amendment rights, when combined with its laissez-faire attitude toward the public health in general (with mental health still the red-haired stepchild), I think the best you can hope for is a government program to distribute guns to every man, woman, and child in hopes of killing shooters before they wreak too much mayhem.
I think the real problem is gun culture and its promotion by Republicans, ever since Second Amendment rights groups were identified by Grover Norquist and his think tank as one of the special interest groups vulnerable to being coopted into their voter coalition. Guns kill their owners more than they kill anybody else, even more than self defense. The gun industry, the NRA, and the Republicans are the problem.
The Second Amendment is unique in stating its purpose. It’s to maintain that militia. Supposedly an improper government can’t become tyrannical over a population if the population is armed. Which was well and good when technology was similar for armies and private citizens. But what good are assault rifles in fending off a military that has ICBMs and nuclear aircraft carriers and submarines? All that is left of the Second Amendment is this shameful killing machine, political money derived from the profits it is designed to protect, and that voting block.
Once again an argument is framed as “either/or”.
I have used this response in many threads - why not both?
There is nothing inherently mutually exclusive in either of these options.
So they jump in front of train, causing the engineers to have trauma and nitemares all his life. So they drive into oncoming traffic, taking several others with them. Etc, etc.
Is that what happens in countries where guns are not readily available? Terrible epidemic of PTSD among train engineers in France and the UK then?
I don’t think you’re getting it.
Your question is in error, because you ask as though these are answers or concerns about a SINGLE PROBLEM.
There are TWO problems, which in the event, have some overlap.
It’s similar in a way to the problem of killings using vehicles. There is a problem of allowing too easy access of unqualified or incompetent people to powerful vehicles, AND there are problems with crazy people getting behind the wheel.
Only one thing is certain: anyone who proclaims that we should only address ONE of the problems, is by that decision, on the side of the murderers.
This is true and certainly getting more help to those suffering from depression is a worthwhile effort. We will never stop all suicides but we can try harder in this arena I think.
That said I think when it comes to guns people worry more about someone else shooting them than shooting themself (theirself?). As such others with guns is likely to get more attention as a political matter.
I dont know, why not ask the Belgians, the Japanese, Swedish, Finns, South Korea etc, all of whom have a higher suicide rate than the USA? In Japan, at least it certainly isnt availability of guns.
YOU implied that lack of guns makes for a more traumatized society due to the remaining public options left to the person wishing to take his or her life. So why don’t YOU provide the evidence for that argument? I’ll wait.
I think we have two things at work here.
-
Why do people commit suicide? There are many reasons and the culture you come from can play a big factor. This has nothing to do with the means of suicide and everything to do with why people choose suicide. For instance in the US men are more than three times as likely to die from suicide as women.
-
The means of suicide can have an effect. Some means of suicide are a more reliably lethal than others. Guns being near the top of the list. For those who choose suicide, but might not want to die given a further chance at life, the reliably lethal means of suicide are a problem. The person will (probably) not get a second chance at life. IIRC men are more “successful” at committing suicide in the US than women since they more often choose the more reliably lethal means of suicide.
There’s a lot of complicated questions wrapped up in that apparently simple one.
Mental health is an ill-defined status, and furthermore, is subject to unpredictable transient influences. Even someone who can be assessed as the epitome of mental stability can crack under the influence of sufficient adverse events and pressures:
"If you have a country saturated with guns – available to people when they are intoxicated, angry or depressed – it’s not unusual guns will be used more often,‘’ said Rebecca Peters, a Johns Hopkins University fellow specializing in gun violence. "This has to be treated as a public health emergency.‘’
For that reason alone, control of basically unregulated gun proliferation can be judged to be a higher priority in controlling gun violence than mental health issues, although certainly preventing access to guns by those who are clearly chronically mentally ill is crucial. But when guns are about as ubiquitous as chocolate bars, it’s almost impossible to prevent dangerous individuals from acquiring them just as easily, or acquisition by individuals temporarily in an emotionally altered state of mind, whether through theft, private sales, or – as in the case of the Newtown shooter – just given them by his mother, because guns are so ingrained in the culture they’re regarded as patriotic virtues.
The other data point on this is that, sadly, mental health issues aren’t treated much more effectively in other countries than they are in the US, in part because they can be hard to detect and diagnose, and traditionally have not been regarded as a serious medical problem except in the most extreme cases. And yet, none of those countries – not one – has anywhere near the rate of gun violence as the US. The difference is gun regulation, gun culture, and the extent of general gun availability, which tends to be defined by need and by function, not as some cultural icon or intrinsic right.
ETA: On the issue of gun suicide, someone mentioned in another thread that it’s quite different in terms of potential remedies than gun homicides. True, suicides, homicides, and gun accidents are all different. But what they all have in common is “things that were enabled by guns, and either would not have happened or would have happened less frequently and with much lower incidence of lethal consequences if guns had not been involved”. So they do deserve to be lumped together, statistically, in assessing gun violence overall.
It turns out the ready availability of guns IS a factor in suicides: