Mental Health Rehab: Not the Answer to Gun Violence?
Now I've heard everything. The New York Times today ran a story today about how some people think rethinking mental health isn't going to do anything to curb violence.
That's because, according to the article, some experts think it's unfair to single out mentally ill people as an answer to gun violence because "people with serious mental illness are involved in only about 4% of violent crime," and are far more likely to be victims of it -- 11 or more times the general population.
Of course, fixing mental health is the NRA's answer to violence committed by people with assault weapons with multiple clips. (Remember: guns don't kill people. People kill people. But as I saw on a sign in the NYT yesterday, "Guns just let it happen.")
Lest we forget, Adam Lanza was able to kill 20 first graders and six teachers in a matter of minutes with the availability of guns that sprayed 13 or more bullets at a time. And had hundreds of clips left.
Some talk about stiffening the laws for involuntary psychiatric commitment. But wasn't that allegedly, according to some reports, why Lanza did what he did?
And let's not forget politcs. "The push for additional mental health laws is often driven by political expediency, some critics say," according to the article. Yet, these ideas are enticing because they don't incur the wrath of the NRA, or face stiff resistance from those in Congress who benefit from this organization's generosity.
I'm so sad to hear, as I did today, that the reinstatment of the assault weapons ban is teetering on the tightrope of terminating, because our friends in Congress are so afraid of the NRA. As Gabby Gifford pointed out in her brief, poignant talk, we, the public, must act to let Congress know that we can't, just can't, let Newtown fade into the background, like all the other mass shootings.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/01/us/focus-on-mental-health-laws-to-curb-violence-is-unfair-some-say.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
That's because, according to the article, some experts think it's unfair to single out mentally ill people as an answer to gun violence because "people with serious mental illness are involved in only about 4% of violent crime," and are far more likely to be victims of it -- 11 or more times the general population.
Of course, fixing mental health is the NRA's answer to violence committed by people with assault weapons with multiple clips. (Remember: guns don't kill people. People kill people. But as I saw on a sign in the NYT yesterday, "Guns just let it happen.")
Lest we forget, Adam Lanza was able to kill 20 first graders and six teachers in a matter of minutes with the availability of guns that sprayed 13 or more bullets at a time. And had hundreds of clips left.
Some talk about stiffening the laws for involuntary psychiatric commitment. But wasn't that allegedly, according to some reports, why Lanza did what he did?
And let's not forget politcs. "The push for additional mental health laws is often driven by political expediency, some critics say," according to the article. Yet, these ideas are enticing because they don't incur the wrath of the NRA, or face stiff resistance from those in Congress who benefit from this organization's generosity.
I'm so sad to hear, as I did today, that the reinstatment of the assault weapons ban is teetering on the tightrope of terminating, because our friends in Congress are so afraid of the NRA. As Gabby Gifford pointed out in her brief, poignant talk, we, the public, must act to let Congress know that we can't, just can't, let Newtown fade into the background, like all the other mass shootings.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/01/us/focus-on-mental-health-laws-to-curb-violence-is-unfair-some-say.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Comments
Post a Comment