Many people under-estimate the value of psychology (or psychiatry) in the gun violence debate. The mainstream is concerned with gun control - and not simply banning of all weapons (or even all guns). The debate has skidded off to this disturbingly moderate conversation about whether or not to check a gun buyer's criminal background. Not only are these moderate reforms shaky, they also suggest that there's a/are bigger problem(s) in our society. Problems that we as a society seem to be ignoring -- or obfuscating.
The fact that we don't have this kind of reform - moreover, the fact that anyone would be against it - is perplexing, troubling but not all that surprising, nonetheless, considering that we're in the 21st century (a century chalk-full of not just violence done in far away lands). Our century - and our country - has plenty to offer in terms of domestic terrorism, murder, suicide, and the like. For all ends and purposes, however, let's assume this reform is taken and, taken a greater risk, let's assume it is fully enforced.
In this case, people with criminal records - kids who've done pretty serious crimes and who've lived pretty disturbed lives aside, since their records would have been expunged - wouldn't be able to buy guns legally (chances are: gun dealers on the black market will not obey the law). People who don't have criminal records will, however, be allowed to buy guns. So what're the assumptions we're making, besides the first two, which perhaps are risky. People without criminal records will not use weapons to commit crimes. As we've touched upon, this means children, even if they have done some serious crimes and lived seriously disturbed lives, (or even adults who lived such a life as a kid) would be allowed weapons, despite the risk they pose upon themselves and the people around them. The second: all, or at least the majority of, people who perpetrate gun violence have committed a prior crime. This is a little broader then the our previous assumption, but it is a little different. To build such a claim, or to believe in such an assumption, we'd have to go into statistics, and yet numbers aren't enough. We'd have to prove that the numbers actually mean something. But to disprove it, we can take a few logical steps. Why do people who commit previous crimes commit them? There is a motive. Perhaps, and indeed this is a possibility, people with this motive will use said motive to commit a crime. But if we follow with this logic, then we shouldn't forget one slight detail. If a person has a criminal record, then they were processed by the the criminal justice system. This means, an attempt has been made to push them away from ever committing a crime again. Nevertheless, recidivism is a real issue. And plenty of ex-cons commit a crime again. But how many of these criminals commit a more violent crime the next time? How many ex-cons shoot out a school or a college or take down a military base or kill their 2-year-old son or kill a cop's family after committing a first crime? Indeed, not only have these ex-cons faced the criminal justice system (and hopefully have been pushed from recidivism) their motive has been reduced to shreds. Suppose their motive hasn't been destroyed - makes you wonder what they're doing in the public. Criminal background checks are necessary - but they're also a cop out maneuver. Not only does this obfuscate and perpetuate the true problems in our society - our bad criminal justice system, economic deprivation, perhaps Cornel West's "nihilism" - they don't necessarily detract potential killers from doing gun violence. This, statistics prove.
In addition to the "criminal checks" debate are others: e.g., the NRA's proposal to arm everyone. Not only would they be arming the dangerous, they arm the potential victims. But, alas, they create victims - and this is a paradox they don't understand. But, there is a striking story - or, since I'm paraphrasing, case - we need to study. Two men attempt to break and enter a house. In the house, a mother is serving dinner to her kids. She supposedly hears the men, gets up, grabs her gun. She shoots one fatally and the other, noticing the violence, runs away. The woman and her children were saved, perhaps only because she had a gun. But, as a society, we must ask not wonder about the saving, but the preventing. How do we prevent not only the breaking and entering but the death of a man. In other words, we must ask: why did the two men break and enter in the first place? To rob the woman, to rape the woman, to kill the children? Who knows? But one thing is for sure: the issue is either economic - the criminal is a have-not - or psychological. The criminal is a psychopath, perhaps a sociopath, clearly psychologically abnormal.
This fits this scenario but is this a general rule? To answer this, we must go back to statistics. But what's the alternative? Are there killers who are psychologically stable? 15 percent of US adult population has some kind of mental disorder. And according to an interview of Paul Appelbaum by HuffPost's Jefferey Young: "'Most gun violence is just not committed by people with mental illness,' he said." Appaum, like most Americans engaged in the gun violence debate and well people in general, seems to be too focused on one issue, the way things are. And, indeed, this creates some serious fallacies, logical and statistical. Are we just interested in people who perpetrate gun violence, or in the concocted motives to use such a violence, what makes people dangerous, what makes people likely to use gun violence? The logic is very clear. Most people don't want to kill little kids. Most people don't want to kill their kids. Most people don't want to "terminate your families" - from Christopher Dorner's Manifesto. But they do. And they do because they clearly have mental illness. But Appelbaum knows this. He's not referring to the baby-killers, the child-killers, or even the family-terminators. By "most gun violence," Appelbaum is perhaps referring to the vast majority of such violence: kids in gangs, domestic violence, and the like. But, alas, no, he's not. Young write: "No thorough study exists establishing a connection between mental illnesses and mass shootings, Appelbaum said. Neither does a database of mass shootings that would allow researchers to flesh out a useful profile of those seemingly prone to horrific violence." This doesn't mean anything! And Young explains one reason why, but the larger reason is this: if they had been diagnosed and treated for mental disorders would they, the killers, have committed such a crime? For the most part, no. Similarly: if the criminal justice system does it's job, would there be so many repeat offenders? By definition, no. If curing crime, i.e., preventing crime (or at least those who've committed crime) from committing it again is not the purpose of the CJ system -- what is?
Let's go back to Appelbaum's first observation: there aren't any studies being conducted/have been conducted to connect mental illness with gun violence. Is there no research being conducted on the matter? Lo and behold, there is. On Feb. 11, 2013, in Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, CA there will be a conference, entitled "Facing the Crisis: Mental Illness and Gun Violence." Among those speaking are dozens of police officers, psychologists, and directors of public agencies. Perhaps we won't have a solid answer until we hear these members of the Pasadena community speak but one thing is certain as of now: there might be a link between mental health and gun violence. It is, according to Dr. Appelbaum, an unexplored area. Regardless, there is nothing much else we can do. No amount of checks or bans will tackle the source of the issue: the motive -- which, coincidentally, begs what sounds awfully like a psychological question: why do people kill others? There seem to be two explanations: economic and psychological. Either way, the real method for change seems to be something bigger and broader and, yes, more difficult than what's on the table. Perhaps we'll have to make serious reforms in the CJ system. Perhaps we'll have to improve our public psychological care. Or maybe it's a matter of totally economic transformation. Regardless, as we've found out, it's bigger than taking a bunch of guns off the street.
The fact that we don't have this kind of reform - moreover, the fact that anyone would be against it - is perplexing, troubling but not all that surprising, nonetheless, considering that we're in the 21st century (a century chalk-full of not just violence done in far away lands). Our century - and our country - has plenty to offer in terms of domestic terrorism, murder, suicide, and the like. For all ends and purposes, however, let's assume this reform is taken and, taken a greater risk, let's assume it is fully enforced.
In this case, people with criminal records - kids who've done pretty serious crimes and who've lived pretty disturbed lives aside, since their records would have been expunged - wouldn't be able to buy guns legally (chances are: gun dealers on the black market will not obey the law). People who don't have criminal records will, however, be allowed to buy guns. So what're the assumptions we're making, besides the first two, which perhaps are risky. People without criminal records will not use weapons to commit crimes. As we've touched upon, this means children, even if they have done some serious crimes and lived seriously disturbed lives, (or even adults who lived such a life as a kid) would be allowed weapons, despite the risk they pose upon themselves and the people around them. The second: all, or at least the majority of, people who perpetrate gun violence have committed a prior crime. This is a little broader then the our previous assumption, but it is a little different. To build such a claim, or to believe in such an assumption, we'd have to go into statistics, and yet numbers aren't enough. We'd have to prove that the numbers actually mean something. But to disprove it, we can take a few logical steps. Why do people who commit previous crimes commit them? There is a motive. Perhaps, and indeed this is a possibility, people with this motive will use said motive to commit a crime. But if we follow with this logic, then we shouldn't forget one slight detail. If a person has a criminal record, then they were processed by the the criminal justice system. This means, an attempt has been made to push them away from ever committing a crime again. Nevertheless, recidivism is a real issue. And plenty of ex-cons commit a crime again. But how many of these criminals commit a more violent crime the next time? How many ex-cons shoot out a school or a college or take down a military base or kill their 2-year-old son or kill a cop's family after committing a first crime? Indeed, not only have these ex-cons faced the criminal justice system (and hopefully have been pushed from recidivism) their motive has been reduced to shreds. Suppose their motive hasn't been destroyed - makes you wonder what they're doing in the public. Criminal background checks are necessary - but they're also a cop out maneuver. Not only does this obfuscate and perpetuate the true problems in our society - our bad criminal justice system, economic deprivation, perhaps Cornel West's "nihilism" - they don't necessarily detract potential killers from doing gun violence. This, statistics prove.
In addition to the "criminal checks" debate are others: e.g., the NRA's proposal to arm everyone. Not only would they be arming the dangerous, they arm the potential victims. But, alas, they create victims - and this is a paradox they don't understand. But, there is a striking story - or, since I'm paraphrasing, case - we need to study. Two men attempt to break and enter a house. In the house, a mother is serving dinner to her kids. She supposedly hears the men, gets up, grabs her gun. She shoots one fatally and the other, noticing the violence, runs away. The woman and her children were saved, perhaps only because she had a gun. But, as a society, we must ask not wonder about the saving, but the preventing. How do we prevent not only the breaking and entering but the death of a man. In other words, we must ask: why did the two men break and enter in the first place? To rob the woman, to rape the woman, to kill the children? Who knows? But one thing is for sure: the issue is either economic - the criminal is a have-not - or psychological. The criminal is a psychopath, perhaps a sociopath, clearly psychologically abnormal.
This fits this scenario but is this a general rule? To answer this, we must go back to statistics. But what's the alternative? Are there killers who are psychologically stable? 15 percent of US adult population has some kind of mental disorder. And according to an interview of Paul Appelbaum by HuffPost's Jefferey Young: "'Most gun violence is just not committed by people with mental illness,' he said." Appaum, like most Americans engaged in the gun violence debate and well people in general, seems to be too focused on one issue, the way things are. And, indeed, this creates some serious fallacies, logical and statistical. Are we just interested in people who perpetrate gun violence, or in the concocted motives to use such a violence, what makes people dangerous, what makes people likely to use gun violence? The logic is very clear. Most people don't want to kill little kids. Most people don't want to kill their kids. Most people don't want to "terminate your families" - from Christopher Dorner's Manifesto. But they do. And they do because they clearly have mental illness. But Appelbaum knows this. He's not referring to the baby-killers, the child-killers, or even the family-terminators. By "most gun violence," Appelbaum is perhaps referring to the vast majority of such violence: kids in gangs, domestic violence, and the like. But, alas, no, he's not. Young write: "No thorough study exists establishing a connection between mental illnesses and mass shootings, Appelbaum said. Neither does a database of mass shootings that would allow researchers to flesh out a useful profile of those seemingly prone to horrific violence." This doesn't mean anything! And Young explains one reason why, but the larger reason is this: if they had been diagnosed and treated for mental disorders would they, the killers, have committed such a crime? For the most part, no. Similarly: if the criminal justice system does it's job, would there be so many repeat offenders? By definition, no. If curing crime, i.e., preventing crime (or at least those who've committed crime) from committing it again is not the purpose of the CJ system -- what is?
Let's go back to Appelbaum's first observation: there aren't any studies being conducted/have been conducted to connect mental illness with gun violence. Is there no research being conducted on the matter? Lo and behold, there is. On Feb. 11, 2013, in Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, CA there will be a conference, entitled "Facing the Crisis: Mental Illness and Gun Violence." Among those speaking are dozens of police officers, psychologists, and directors of public agencies. Perhaps we won't have a solid answer until we hear these members of the Pasadena community speak but one thing is certain as of now: there might be a link between mental health and gun violence. It is, according to Dr. Appelbaum, an unexplored area. Regardless, there is nothing much else we can do. No amount of checks or bans will tackle the source of the issue: the motive -- which, coincidentally, begs what sounds awfully like a psychological question: why do people kill others? There seem to be two explanations: economic and psychological. Either way, the real method for change seems to be something bigger and broader and, yes, more difficult than what's on the table. Perhaps we'll have to make serious reforms in the CJ system. Perhaps we'll have to improve our public psychological care. Or maybe it's a matter of totally economic transformation. Regardless, as we've found out, it's bigger than taking a bunch of guns off the street.
2 comments:
sorry wrote this on the wrong post! agree wholeheartedly, wish more people would realize it's not just about the guns.
I was able to find good information from your blog posts.
Also visit my site - coffee drinkers
Post a Comment