The debate between guns and mental illness

TORONTO – A lone gunman, a couple of guns and dozens of innocent victims may be what triggers a move toward stiffer gun control and improved mental health in the troubled United States, rocked by another historic tragedy at the hands of guns.

The debate between gun control and mental illness is heating up around the world as politicians, columnists and the public alike discuss what could stop these mass killings.

Take a look at what they’re saying.

A case for mental illness intervention

Slaughter exposes social crisis deeper than gun control laws

The Edmonton Journal’s Paula Simons asks if those on the outskirts of society turn their backs on the world because they aren’t accepted.

“In our society, we marginalize those with psychiatric problems. We dismiss or ignore or deny or simply fail to recognize their symptoms, because those symptoms often make us uncomfortable. We stigmatize mental illness. That, in turn, makes people hesitant to seek treatment . . .,” she writes.

“The answer isn’t to ban midnight movies, or video games. It isn’t to lock down our schools, or arm our teachers.

What we need, even more than sane gun laws, is a culture that recognizes and treats those struggling with mental illness and social alienation, before they fall into a deadly daze of psychosis, or a black fog of rage and despair.”

“We don’t yet know much about Adam Lanza, the 20-year-old identified as the Sandy Hook shooter. We don’t know what drove him to commit this atrocity, then take his own life. We probably won’t find answers on his Facebook page or in his Twitter stream. We certainly won’t find them by writing him off as an evil aberration. We need to ask ourselves, instead, why so many young men are so angry, so alienated, so afflicted, that they strike out in such terrible fury, and leave such unimaginable grief in their wake.” 

Column: Dealing with guns and mental illness

Pete Earley, in USA Today, says he worries that those with mental illness will be lumped together with the small group of people who have committed heinous acts of violence, who have also had their share of mental health issues.

Earley notes that early reports suggest the Sandy Hook killer had a mental disorder. So did the mass killers in Tucson and Virginia Tech.

“When 20 children lie dead in a school along with six adults, it’s hard to keep these mass murders in perspective. It’s hard to remember that only a small subset of severely disturbed persons commit them,” he writes.

Connecticut has an estimated 140,000 residents with severe mental illnesses. About half are not getting any treatment. Why? . . . In my home state of Virginia, persons with psychiatric problems who are dangerous are being released to the streets because there are no treatment beds available.

In addition to debating gun control, we need to ask why our mental health system is failing us.”

How can we explain shootings if we don’t report on mental illness?

At the Poynter Institute, Andrew Beaujon warns the media to take the time to answer the questions, and to make a conscious effort to report on mental illness responsibly.

“. . . it’s easy to find out an individual state’s gun laws. It’s far harder to assess a state’s approach to mental health issues,” he writes.
“All of these subjects offer journalists ample ground to help readers make sense of an issue they generally grapple with only when something horrific like a Newtown happens. But readers are often shy about mental-health stories themselves.”

A case for gun control laws 

Could shooting be a gun control tipping point?

The Associated Press suggests the Sandy Hook shooting could be what forces U.S. President Barack Obama into implementing stricter gun laws.

“The question surfaces each time a mass murder unfolds: Will this one change the political calculus in Washington against tougher gun control?

The answer, after the Virginia Tech killings, the attempted assassination of Gabby Giffords, the Colorado movie-theater attack, the Wisconsin Sikh temple shootings, and more: No,” Calvin Woodward writes.

But he is skeptical.

“It remains to be seen whether Sandy Hook will break the usual cycle of universal shock fading into political reality.”

What gun control can and can’t do

In The Week, Marc Ambinder says succinctly that guns don’t kill people, people kill people, so “make it harder for people to get guns. And make it harder for guns to be misused.”

The tweet made it rounds through social media quickly.

“Criminal background checks, a basic mental health test and recertification, along with registration, limits on the types of guns available for purchase, and limits on the amount of ammo that can be bought. Guns bought and sold at hobby shows ought to be subject to the same regulations.

There ought to be a limit as to how much ammunition a gun can fire. Very rarely, if ever, will self-defense require a high-capacity clip,” he says, simplifying how gun control can be executed.

“If this costs money, then tax gun owners.” 

Why Obama would be foolish not to pursue gun control

In The Atlantic, Ronald Brownstein discusses the optics of enforcing gun control laws, a move U.S. President Barack Obama had promised to do following the Colorado theatre shooting.

“On gun control, Democrats remain paralyzed by the fear of losing voters whom they have already lost.

After the Aurora, Colo., massacre last week, President Obama waited until this Wednesday to raise the issue at all — and even then stopped short of reaffirming his previous support for restoring the assault-weapons ban passed under Bill Clinton.”

Obama’s cautious call for action sets stage to revive gun debate

The New York Times spoke to White House officials who said this wasn’t a time to “politicize a tragedy,” but the paper is certain Sandy Hook has set the stage for gun debate.

“As the debate over gun control flares anew, it is likely to focus on the types of two of the guns that were found with the suspect in Connecticut, a Glock pistol and a Bushmaster .223 M4 carbine rifle, which are similar in type to the weapons used in the mass shootings in Oregon and Colorado.

Both guns are popular for target shooting and self-defense, and have been singled out by gun-control advocates because of their ability to rapidly fire multiple rounds and accommodate large magazines.”