Tag: Mass Shootings

Posted on

A Post on the Recent Mass Shootings

Buffalo. Laguna Woods. Uvalde. Tulsa. The recent mass shootings I’ve heard about on the news over the past few weeks have been…a lot. And I know I am far from the only person who feels this way.

What simultaneously angers, upsets, and grieves me is the fact that some of our politicians are absolutely tone-deaf to all of this. Just days after a mass shooting in Texas, some top politicians  went to a convention for the National Rifle Association (NRA)—the entity arguably most responsible for the fact that our country does little to nothing after every single mass shooting—in, of all places, Texas.

We ask ourselves why America is the only country that keeps on having these mass shootings. There are many theories, but I think a part of it may be because too many of our politicians refuse to do anything of substance after the mass shootings. Other countries have taken significant measures after mass shootings, and in at least one of those cases (Australia) and arguably another of those cases (the United Kingdom), those measures were effective in curbing gun violence.[1] And then in a third such case (New Zealand), it is simply too early to tell.

So if we know that there are other countries that have successfully made attempts to reduce gun violence, then why can’t we have the same in the United States? I think a part of it is because too many politicians at the national level don’t have the courage to break ranks with the NRA and its supporters in order to do anything of substance. And because of that, it seems like the votes likely aren’t there for substantive gun control.

But even if the votes for needed gun control measures were there in Congress, the current Supreme Court seems to have an appetite for, if anything, expanding gun rights through a rather expansive view of what the Second Amendment (the amendment used when it comes to gun rights) means.[2]

So what should be done?

The first thing I will suggest may be extremely controversial, but if the courts are going to interpret the Second Amendment in ways that will keep states or the federal government from making any gun control measures stick—even ones that have worked in other countries—we need to repeal the Second Amendment. If the way we use the Second Amendment is as an excuse to do nothing about who owns a gun, or as a means of striking down any gun control laws, even in the wake of mass shootings, it’s time to repeal the amendment that provides this excuse.[3]

Now, just to be clear, if the Second Amendment were to be repealed (and I would wager that I have a better chance of becoming a billionaire than I do of seeing a repeal of the Second Amendment), this doesn’t mean that nobody will be able to own a gun. Instead, what it means is that, as with many other things in life that require registrations and licenses, there are responsibilities that one might be required to meet in order to become a gun owner. Some of the responsibilities that should become a part of gun control legislation should be modeled off of what Australia—a country with a significant hunting culture, I might add—did after its most recent mass shooting decades ago:

  • Extensive licensing and registration processes
  • A 28-day waiting period for firearm sales
  • A severe restriction or even a ban on fully automatic or semi-automatic weapons
  • A federal gun buyback program to help people give back guns in a responsible way

I recognize that some of what I am suggesting is not only controversial, but perhaps politically untenable, for many politicians right now—hence why I’m not hearing my suggestion for repealing the Second Amendment coming even come from many liberals. But honestly, given the illness of mass shootings that this country is going through right now, I think everything—and I mean everything—needs to be on the table. And that includes things that may be politically untenable to even some gun control advocates.

[1] https://spectrumnews1.com/ky/louisville/news/2022/05/25/mass-shooting-uvalde-dunblane-port-arthur-gun-control

[2] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/supreme-court-verge-expanding-second-amendment-gun-rights

[3] A constitutional amendment can be repealed and was repealed once before. Namely, the 18th Amendment (having to do with alcohol prohibition) was repealed by the 21st Amendment.

Posted on

Mass Shootings and Mental Health

Two weekends ago, the United States had two heavily publicized mass shootings within fewer than 24 hours of each other: one in El Paso, Texas, and one in Dayton, Ohio. Between the two mass shootings, over 30 lives were senselessly cut short. 

In the wake of such tragedies, many of us, regardless of political affiliation, try to seek out explanations for these mass shootings. But, given my own openness about mental health on this blog, I think that I need to address just how problematic it is to simply blame mass shootings on mental health problems.

Blaming mass shootings on mental health problems makes me, and other people who’ve struggled with their mental health, feel misunderstood. By blaming mass shootings on mental health problems, we are creating this portrayal of mental health issues as something that is monstrous and seeks to do harm to others. The reality, though, is that there is a range of mental health issues, many of which have nothing to do with a desire to harm others. For example, my intrusive thoughts (unwelcome, unpleasant, and upsetting thoughts and ideas), which I’ve talked about on my blog did not involve even the slightest of desires to harm anyone else; instead, the intrusive thoughts involved a fear of my wanting to do harm to myself, even though I didn’t even want to harm myself. My friends and family who have struggled with anxiety and depression (issues different from intrusive thoughts, by the way) have never expressed a desire to harm others, either. In the wake of many mass shootings, mental illness is often associated with harm of others, even though many of us have mental health issues where we fight against harm of self, not a harm of others.

The consequences of feeling or being misunderstood with mental health are serious. According to mental health experts, stigmatizing mental health issues after mass shootings likely makes it harder for people to seek the treatment they need than it would if mental health issues were not as stigmatized.[1] We, therefore, create a situation where people struggle to seek treatment for conditions that in many cases seek no harm of others, precisely because we link harm to others with mental health issues. That is not what we need if we want to address individual mental health crises.

Even though it is problematic to link mass shootings with mental health issues, we should not ignore the serious problems with America’s mental health system. We should not lose sight of the fact that the United States lacks stand-alone mental health legislation,[2] and we should not lose sight of the fact that many patients in the United States struggle to get access to mental healthcare.[3] If we want to improve individuals’ mental health, we should avoid blaming mass shootings on mental illnesses, but instead improve our mental health care system.

[1] It is worth having this quote from an American Psychological Association statement dated August 4; this quote was published in TIME Magazine: “Routinely blaming mass shootings on mental illness is unfounded and stigmatizing. The rates of mental illness are roughly the same around the world, yet other countries are not experiencing these traumatic events as often as we face them. One critical factor is access to, and the lethality of, the weapons that are being used in these crimes. Adding racism, intolerance and bigotry to the mix is a recipe for disaster.”

[2] https://www.who.int/gho/mental_health/policy_financing/policy_health_plan/en/

[3] https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/11/29/567264925/health-insurers-are-still-skimping-on-mental-health-coverage