Lessons We Should Learn from Rep. Gifford's Shooting

Remove all ads!

Since I think this tragedy deserves an honest and fair assessment of what caused it and what we can do to prevent more, I've started this thread.

The two topics I can see that are likely to be addressed on the national stage in the long term are gun control and mental health. The two appear to be linked at the moment in this case. By that I mean that the people who sell guns, even under the most stringent laws in the US, had no indication that they shouldn't be selling a weapon to this man. He didn't have a worrying criminal history and he didn't have a mental health record. Because of that, while we can talk about what the gun laws are, what they should be, what would have happened, and what should have happened, there's no indication as of yet that any constitutional law would have prevented Jared Lee Loughner from getting a gun.

Here is one article I've seen on the topic so far. It deals with the mental health aspect, which I think is the best starting point. It basically argues for an 'If You See Something, Say Something' approach to mental health. Mental health professionals are already required to report someone if they show signs of being a threat to themselves or others, but as I understand it at the moment, this only applies to patients. It is a way to breach, and even a requirement to breach, doctor-patient confidentiality. Something similar exists for lawyers. Should mental health professionals be required to report something if they see it in someone in public? It's a more complicated topic, because the things a psychologist sees that indicate a threat are seen within a context of understanding the person doing them. Many of these things, seen in a random person in a store, wouldn't raise an eyebrow. Others, however, would. On top of that, and what I think the article is really getting at, is an idea that the average Joe, if he has reason to be concerned, should be encouraged to say something to the proper authorities.

And, of course, that brings us to the next topic, and the real heart of the matter in this case: what can authorities do. Under most laws (again, as I understand it), the authorities can't really do much of anything unless the person in question has already demonstrated themselves to be a threat. By then, it's often too late. This is the real heart of the matter, IMO, in this case, because Loughner did come to the attention of authorities, both in the Sheriff's Department and in the school system (both in HS and college), and possibly in the Army (though that may have been over drugs, not mental concerns). At the same time, in the past, authorities have had the power to lock up anyone they chose with little if any evidence, and in some places of the world today, mental health issues are still the favored imprisonment excuses for political enemies. Given the often subjective nature of the psychological field, how are we to prevent similar abuses on our own soil?

More in general, in the '70s and '80s, the US closed most of it's mental institutions, it's asylums, and returned those patients back to the community, with the idea that they would be treated through a 'community outreach' kind of program. Those programs, sadly, haven't worked. Today, a great many of the mentally ill live on our streets, literally. They are many of the homeless. Make no mistake, while the asylums of the '70s were heaven compared to those of 200 years earlier, they were still what many people today would call barbaric, or at least more prison than place of healing. Should they be re-opened? If they are, can we do better today than 40 years ago? Do you think we actually would? Would they, even as they existed 40 years ago, be a better solution than the street?

And lastly, gun control. What laws should be in place to prevent madmen from purchasing guns? Would a waiting period have deterred Loughner? Should a psychological profile be required before purchasing a gun?

On a side note, for those interested in the topic, how much might a diagnosis of a mental illness divert blame away from the shooter himself? As the twisted version of reality in which a madman dwells is uncovered in an investigation, people often question if they are right to blame the mentally ill person for their actions. Given the delutions they suffered under, and the reality that they couldn't escape them on their own, more than one person has argued that they aren't to blame. Indeed, that's the whole point of the legal definition of insanity.

 

In a very general sense, there are some problems in existence that have no solution, or at least not a good one.

Re: gun control, leaving aside it's specific debate for the moment (I really have no interest in getting into that, and I don't suppose that's what this thread's for), for some people at least, the 'safeties' gained by restricting access are not worth the liberties lost, plain and simple. The outcome there is that one way or another, firearms will always be able to be accessed for use in committing crimes.

Re: mental health, I would be personally a bit frightened at the notion of expanding the powers of those in authority to force an individual into evaluation or institutionalization. I suspect that just about everybody exhibits some form of mental illness in some part of their lives, at some time. (Person A might be mildly depressed in the winter, person B might tend to overreact to stress, person C might have a bad temper, etc.) Not all of these mean you need to be evaluated or that you're a danger to yourself and/or others. Yet with expanded powers to subject people to evaluation, you and I might find ourselves facing that unpleasant circumstance if we lose our temper at work, miss too many days of work or school due to depression, have something of a stress meltdown at home, or threaten someone on a message board, etc.

So I would be in favor of no increased powers along those lines, which leads to ... nothing being done ... which leads to ... the possibility of mentally disturbed persons committing violent crimes continuing to exist.

Is it ideal that we continue to face these dangers? No. Is it possible that there are no good solutions for reducing the risks? IMO, yes.

 

I've never heard of that happening (which doesn't mean it hasn't -- I claim no omniscience) and as a teacher, despite rules about reporting, I'd want to be really sure about things and have my ducks in a row before reporting because there are plenty of hassles that go with making such a report, even today.

I agree that mentally ill people are a dicey subject, and I know they have rights. I just wish that the safety of society were a bigger concern when making these decisions -- I feel that too often the focus is solely on the rights of the ill and not enough on the safety of those the mentally ill may assault, kill, or otherwise harm. I desire more balance in such cases.

 

The guy was a walking time bomb, just as the VA Tech shooter was. A lot of people knew it, even before the shootings. In this instance, the shooter was kicked out of his college for being unstable and hostile; his teacher was afraid to turn his back on him and use the chalkboard, one student sat next to the door, ready to run out when he was in the class; and his parents were notified of the problem. So what does the state of Arizona do? Sell him an automatic gun with a high-capacity magazine. Brilliant. No soultions? How about if we start by not selling crazy people guns? But don't give us the line that there are no solutions. We may not be able to prevent every shooting but do we have to make it so god damn easy for them to kill our children?

 

I would say that there are no perfect solutions, but I agree that there are many steps that can and should be taken to reduce the risk of undesireables getting ahold of guns legally. However, enact all the laws we will, we cannot 100% stop people from getting hold of weapons or even making them (I refer here to bombs.)

Last night there was a special on a channel called TLC (I don't know if it's an American network or a Canadian one) entitled "Secrets of the Secret Service". Man, those guys have some sweet tech and training but they emphasized that you can be vigilant and stop 1000 assassination attempts, but it's the 1001th attempt that gets through that counts. It's truly a lousy situation, and as long as humans are humans we are gonna have incidents like this. But that's no reason to stop doing our damndest to stop as many shootings / assassinations / murders / etc as humanly possible.

 

That's exactly my point. I don't mean to be overly agressive on this point towards anyone in particular, but we need to have some kind of public debate about the options and what kind of choices we can make as a society and stop at least some of these guys. But the debate is shut down because of the morons in the NRA who won't even allow a debate. It goes back to the same thing - special interest groups run our government.

 

Unfortunately, instances like this just support the case for a larger Secret Service force. I'm really astounded there was no real protection for the Congresswoman -- there should have at least been police officers on the perimeter (although that would not have help her or even the first few victims).

 

I agree wholeheartedly. Why do we need guns? All that crap about protection and such is moot if nobody had a damn gun in the first place.

We should spend less time listening to people like NRA and more time to Chris Rock.

 

I think Baronius in one of the other threads brought up the idea that in his country, people must submit to a psychiatric evaluation before purchasing a gun. I realize many would kvetch about "freedom" or whatever, and would certainly make the process of buying a gun more tedious and heavy on paperwork (and thus, it'd never happen in a million years since it would mean U.S. gun sales would take a hit), but I don't think it's unreasonable.

 

I agree with that in principle, but even if the US did implement such a restriction, it wouldn't stop the crazies from getting guns anymore than we stop cocaine addicts from getting their hands on that illegal substance. The method of acquisition simply changes.

 

Oh, certainly. But I think it's no secret that acquiring a gun in America is not terribly difficult. Easier to acquire, in fact, than cocaine. Making guns harder to get ahold of would in no way solve the problem. There's no way to eliminate the possibility of this happening again entirely. But it would help, even if just a little.

 

Agreed, and I certainly didn't mean to come off as a defeatist (in case I did). It would be a step in the right direction, if nothing else.

 

Defeatist!

 

I'm not picking on you in particular and don't take it that way, but this is what I mean about common sense having gone out the window and the absurdity of the US. It's common sense 101 that you shouldn't put a loaded gun in the hands of a crazy person, and that you should at least take reasonable steps to try and keep it away from them. It wasn't like a lot of people who knew these guys, like VA Tech and Tucson shooters, didn't know there was something wrong with them. In both cases their problems were recognized by the system, a system that still sold them guns. How remarkably stupid it is that should happen.

 

Well, what's absurd about me acknowledging that if a person is denied access to a gun through legal means, it is still possible to obtain one through illegal means? What would be absurd is to DENY that this is true.

As I already posted, a more stringent set of restrictions would be a step in the right direction (so I'm clearly not against this). I'm just pointing out that it's not a "solution" to the problem.

 

Oh, really? Then why do we bother to make drugs illegal?

Nobody is denying it. All I said is that the state shouldn't make guns avaliable to crazy people. In other words, make it harder for them to kill our citizens and children. Common sense 101.

 

I'm along the same lines as Marceror. I in no way want to restrict gun ownership rights. I'm fine with Americans owning, shooting, and collecting as many guns as they want. But let's not kid ourselves - guns are weapons, not toys. And as such, come with a huge amount of responsibility. If you want a gun, great - you should be able to demonstrate several qualifications first. I realize this is already in place. But one of those qualifications apparently is NOT "are you mentally stable?" Add this and a few other restrictions to the list of necessary qualifications, make people requalify regularly, and voila - the happy gun owner can stock up for World War 3, for all I care.

This doesn't address the issue of keeping those guns out the hands of, say, the gun owner's son or neighbor who DIDN'T pass said qualifications...but it's Friday and I'm tired of thinking today.

 

Typically, I don't use the same arguments used by those who want to keep drugs illegal, since, there are so many better arguments I could use, but they seem to apply to guns. Does anyone believe that making drugs illegal has prevented anyone from using them? Second, if that doesn't work, then make very harsh laws for those who are dealers. In other words, if someone sells a gun illegally, [like with drugs] they should go to prison for a long, long, time. And three strikes, they are out. Would that cut down on the sale of illegal guns? I'm not really sure if I'm disproving why both should be legal, or illegal. But the same argument can be used in both instances.

Neverthless, it's still common sense that crazy people shouldn't have guns, regardless. So why sell guns legally to them?