RE: Is Mental Illness Really Fueling Mass Shootings?
Mental illness, gun violence and school shootings are different issues and despite the fact that there are connections between them, each of them requires their own solutions.
Mental illness is something that seems to not be yet treated in a sufficiently effective way all around the world. It's complex subject and there are still aspects that are not well understood. But to me it seems clear that mental health requires more attention on the whole.
It's essential to point out (like you did in your post) that most people suffering from mental illness are non-violent. Vilifying them is a huge problem even if guns are not involved as it discourages people from seeking help when they need it out of fear that they are going to be looked down on and/or lose some rights or freedom.
I do think gun violence is a problem worth addressing and possible prevention is worth investigating and school shootings are something that should not be happening on regular basis. If it is, there is clearly a huge problem.
I live in a country where owning a gun requires a permit and I see nothing wrong with such policy. Guns are a dangerous thing and should not be in the hands of people not capable of handling them properly and since they present a public danger, regulation is a prudent thing to do. Are guns safer and more vital than cars that it would be reasonable for them to be easier to get? If you are going to be driving, you need a driver's license to show that you are capable of performing the task and your car needs to be registered and have a license plate so it is identifiable. I see no good reason for guns to be treated differently especially keeping in mind that cars have more everyday utility than guns.
Where I live, to get both a driver's license and a firearm license, you need to pass a mental health test with a professional psychologist. I have passed both and it's not a high bar to clear but it does serve a purpose. I personally know a mentally unstable person who applied for a gun license and was denies because of this issue and I am glad he did as he has no business having a gun and would have been a huge danger to everybody around him.
Good points. Does that mean anything that can be used to cause harm (vehicle, gun, hammer, knife) should be sold only after proof of mental competency?
You have to obtain a license and pass a test for all? There are two issues of 1) knowledge to know how to use something and 2) abuse to misuse. Why do you need to pass a psyche test for the car and gun, but not for other things that can be misused to harm others?
Passing a test to use vehicles and guns seems reasonable. That is only required because people don't take the responsibility to do learning themselves through self-control and self-governance, and now everyone is forced into external control and governance to get licenses and pay fees for being "verified" by the state. I guess it's up to everyone to raise themselves in consciousness and their children, to be more responsible, then we might do away with all this regulation.
You always have to draw the line somewhere as anything can be used to cause harm. But there are a number of variables that can be looked into so things can be rated on some scale of sorts. Guns (especially assault riffles) have no other direct application than causing harm and have the capacity to cause harm at a level that knives do not compare with. Additionally, I think they can be viewed as something intended to cause more harm than a car so they should be higher on the scale of needing a permit or license to own and operate one. The second variable might be complexity to operate and cars and guns are of higher complexity than knives and hammers. There might be other things to look at like proliferation and so on. But I think it's fairly obvious that guns are a problem in the US and I do think something should be done.
I think both should be tested and screened for at least to some extent. The person I'm talking about who was deemed unfit to bear a weapon was denied by the psychologist because with him it's clear that he is likely to misuse it. But I'm not sure he has a mental health diagnosis really. But everybody is safe because he is unarmed.
Well, unfortunately we are not at the point where we can trust the majority of people to be truly responsible. Maybe someday...
Totally disagree with your first statement. They are different issues that so closely relate to one another and need to be addressed in honesty.
If you look at only where the issues would intersect, you are going to address each issue only partially. What I mean here is not that there is no connection between the issues or that each should be looked at outside any context, but that there is more than one problem to be solved, so there are multi-pronged solutions needed.