In trospect, better mental health services mean little without red flag laws and even then, it is iffy. Over the past years, I have written columns after Columbine, Aurora, and other mass killings. That professionals can spot a future mass killer assumes the killer even had visited a mental health professional, but when they do, there is a 50-50 chance even a trained pro can predict the patient will act out. Even then, what motivates a mass killer may not be an identified diagnosis. Uncontrolled anger is technically not a mental health disease, so red flag laws need to be broader than just a diagnosis of paranoia or some other formal diagnosis of a recognized illness. Those of us who have had to raise teenagers also know that even after 18 years old, few can control themselves and avoid risky behavior.. Their brains, especially young males, have not matured yet to be wired to be rational. The assumption needs to be all under 21 are a potential risk. At the minimum, if there is no ban of assault-type weapons of war, the age should be raised to 21. Some states have done that, but a neighboring state may not which is why the approach needs to be federal. If such laws had been in effect in Texas, chances are Uvalde would not have happened since the shooter was just 18, no red flags, and no record of a personality out of control that we know of so far. I am reproducing an excerpt below from one of those columns and references to sources coloring my opinions.
in the wake of the Aurora Colorado theatre shooting, the shooter had been under the care of a psychiatrist who did flag him, but restrictions kept anyone from acting. My psychologist friends (I am a supporter of mental health system improvements and access to counseling through a faith-based organization) tell me even then they have only a 50-50 chance of predicting which of their patients will carry out mass shootings or kill someone. Mental health is a factor, but in courts of law, the insanity plea is rarely successful. Should we improve our mental health services? Yes. Every little bit will help, but it is not a panacea or even a major deterrent. Without red flag laws permitting reporting of people may be a threat and without universal background checks, improved mental health access still hamstrings the ability for mental health professionals to prevent mass killings.
http://bigthink.com/risk-reason-and-reality/the-supreme-court-ruling-on-the-2nd-amendment-did-not-grant-an-unlimited-right-to-own-guns"https://slate.com/technology/2018/04/anger-isnt-a-mental-illness-but-we-should-still-treat-it.htmlIs mental health the cause of mass killings? The writer of this post gives us some important food for thought. From this psychologist'.s viewpoint, the motivation is uncontrolled anger ...rarely an underlying mental illness. This supports an argument of why we need red flag laws and background checks as part of sensible gun legislation. However, the solution she suggests goes far beyond any legislation discussed today...it is teaching young people anger management and the tools are there...even in Colorado, which she holds up as one model.
https://www.denverpost.com/2019/08/05/red-flag-gun-laws-trump-colorado/
No comments:
Post a Comment