Mental-Health Reform Is a Bipartisan Issue
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Recent mass shootings in Uvalde, Texas, and Buffalo, N.Y., have prompted urgent calls to change the culture. That's harder to do than changing policy, which is hard enough. Changing policy requires dealing in specifics, and also probabilities. Policy works within constitutional parameters to reduce the risk of harm, not to eliminate harm entirely.
Debates over mass shootings have a reputation for devolving into partisanship. Democrats, favoring gun control, accuse Republicans of opportunistically raising mental-health questions as a diversion tactic. It's partly true: Republicans do neglect mental-health reform in ordinary times. But there are achievable policy measures that could be pursued to reduce the risk of mental illness-related violence.
In fact, mental-health reform stands as one of the great bipartisan success stories of our time. The 2012 Newtown, Conn., mass shooting motivated Congress to investigate the failures of American mental healthcare. The final results of this investigation became law in the 21st Century Cures Act, passed overwhelmingly by Congress and signed by President Obama in December 2016. It created a new assistant secretary position to oversee the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, a federal agency long gone astray. The new law also facilitated state-level expansions of assisted outpatient treatment, one of the most reliable community-based programs for stabilizing people with serious mental illness.
Sens. Bill Cassidy (R., La.) and Chris Murphy (D., Conn.) are currently trying to revive that spirit of bipartisanship with their reauthorization of the 2016 act. But their current bill could be strengthened by taking on two major reforms that were considered in the wake of Newtown but didn’t end up becoming law: a repeal of the so-called IMD Exclusion, which restricts Medicaid’s ability to fund inpatient psychiatric care, and allowing families of mentally ill adults more access to their loved one’s health information by weakening Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act restrictions. Dealing with these bits of unfinished business would help increase the rate of treatment for the seriously mentally ill, which is—or should be—the goal of mental-health policy.
Mentally ill people in treatment are less violent than the untreated. Increasing the rate of treatment would reduce mental illness-related violence generally. Most of the violence committed by mentally ill people is more mundane than spectacular mass shootings. Preventing such slaughter would require a more precise intervention—targeting a certain form of violence committed by a certain class of mentally ill people—than mental-health policy can supply.
The same uncertainty prevails with leading gun-control proposals. It is easier to focus on barriers to preferred changes—such as political stonewalling and judges’ alleged misinterpretation of the Constitution—than on what those changes would accomplish if the barriers didn’t exist.
One way to work on changing the culture is to force a debate over policy. The policy changes we’re willing to enact reflect who we are as a culture. A serious culture demands more from policy debate than virtue signaling, even if that means having to accept changes that promise only marginal benefits.
Tags
Who is online
79 visitors
I'll say it again: There is more at play than the issue of a weapon to these shootings.
Except if nobody had a gun.
Good luck with that. Do you honestly thing the criminal element will adhere?
How about we remove guns from homes where felons or those on antidepressants, antianxiety meds and psychotropic drugs or domestic abusers and old age dementia sufferers abide?
It may be an impossible utopian concept where you are, but I'm living it.
That's already law. And yet they still get the weapons. Do you think more legislation is the answer?
You have the safety that we don't. It came with a terrible price.
The Uighurs aren't. They are where they are at the point of a gun.
Hongkongers just don't know a good deal when they're offered it.
A terrible price? You mean I can't access YouTube? Vic, I've been living in China for almost 16 years and I think I'm a little more familiar with what life is like here than someone who has never stepped one foot in this country and only knows it from the biased stories they read.
I'm not a Uighur, and I assume you're not a prison inmate in the nation with the highest rate of incarceration in the world.
Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but like it or not, in 25 years HK will be part of mainland China under the complete control of Beijing. Maybe being eased into that situation and getting used to it rather than having it happen as a shock 25 years from now is preferable. And guess what? The people in HK will survive, their life will not come to an end.
I can support some red flag laws. I'm not sure including antidepressants or antianxiety meds should be included. Is there much correlation between the use and gun violence? Antipsychotics and mood stabilizer use however, might be appropriate for denying gun possession. I note that unfortunately, New York’s red-flag law didn't stop Payton Gendron in Buffalo. Apparently, the mental health evaluation after his announced intent for murder-suicide and wasn't specific enough for the police to seek a red-flag order.
[Deleted]
Perhaps although that wasn't the agreement reached in 1997.
Indeed and they will likely live much better than the Uyghurs, Tibetans, or Mongolians.
How do you know how any of them live? "Vas you dere, Charley?" (Baron Munchausen)
Me either. I take an anxiety medication occasionally. It was prescribed to me for insomnia.
A beautifully filmed, lavish and funny fairytale that I enjoyed immensely.
The cultural revolution is not a biased story.
In case you aren't aware of it there have been a lot of changes in more than half a century. Seems like there have been a lot of changes in America during that time as well.
Add to that anyone found guilty of a violent crime, not just domestic abusers.
I'm with you on that, but the democrats aren't going to get anywhere if they call Republicans names and make this a political issue. Treat those they need to change the 2nd Amendment with a modicum of respect and mountains can be moved..
Are you talking about the politicians or the members of NT? Looking at the time, you may not get my reply to your answer until tomorrow.
POLITICIANS
It will get worse, and unfortunately I'm not sure I can follow that with 'before it gets better'.
Gun control was once the issue that democrats couldn't gain any traction on. This really may be the moment for them to get legislation on it. McConnell says that he is willing to consider it. If the dems can put the rhetoric aside, I think it can be done.
My opinion is McConnell isn't doing that because it's the right thing to do, he's doing it because of the midterms in order to neutralize the benefit the Democrats might get from it. He'll only agree to minimal legislation so as to not lose the hard core gun advocates.
True, but the devil will be in the details. I don't think they can get the votes for another gun ban so it will be interesting to see what can come of it.
You're absolutely right. McConnell is always aware of the political consequences.
He said, “I met with Sen. Cornyn this morning. As you know he went home yesterday to see the family members and begin the fact finding of this awful massacre and I have encouraged him to talk with Sen. Murphy and Sen. Sinema and others who are interested in trying to get an outcome that is directly related to the problem. I am hopeful that we could come up with a bipartisan solution.”
McConnel signaled a willingness to talk but kept the scope narrow.
No reason not to and risk a sizeable win this Fall.
McConnel will find a way to blame Democratic intransigence for the failure of a proposed bill that didn't directly deal with this shooting while appearing open to a deal, while people are angry. He is a clever fox.
That's kind of a pessimistic outlook. I think McConnell wants to protect American children and as long as the democrats can avoid calling half the country "racist," we may finally get what democrats claim they want.
It could be substantial. Maybe the assault rifle ban....maybe more.
Neither McConnell nor any republiGUN has the slightest interest in protecting children. The only interest they have is gaining power in order to advance their donors' profits.
McConnell mentioning talking with Democrats is merely a feint and propaganda talking point. He has no intention of actually doing anything.
Nothing is going to happen if it involves the republicans. Nothing. Especially an assault weapons ban. It's all illusory.
But we decide which is right
and which is an illusion.
Of course it was. I was talking about American politics.
Oh, come on, Vic, substantial? This is America, and you made me think of this line...
If you find yourself feeling useless, remember it took 20 years, trillions of dollars, and four presidents to replace the Taliban with the Taliban.
You have a point there Buzz. It is the great weakness of democracy.
We are a divided country. The working class vs the brainwashed.
"Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said Sunday that a gun law passed by the Florida legislature following the Parkland school shooting was a “signal of what’s possible” when it comes to legislation that could be passed on the federal level.
During an appearance on ABC’s “This Week,” moderator Jonathan Karl ran down the intentions of the bill, which included raising the minimum age in which a person can obtain a firearm to 21 and banned bump stocks, noting that it was passed by a GOP-led legislature and signed by a Republican governor.
Karl asked Murphy if Florida’s state gun law could be a model for the Senate to follow.
“The Florida law is a good law and it’s a signal of what’s possible, right? It married together, changes to Florida’s gun laws. With some significant investments in mental health and school security,” Murphy said.
“I had a long conversation with Senator Scott last week and had him tell me the story of how they were able to pass that legislation, get Republicans to support it and also prove that Republicans could take on the gun lobby because the NRA opposed that measure, and still get reelected, which has been the case I’ve been making to Republicans for a decade.”
Vic, IMO, VP Harris is absolutely right. Citizens in a civilized country DON'T NEED and should NOT HAVE weapons of war. Is it true that at the NRA convention they are actually displaying and selling MACHINE GUNS that can bring down a Blackhawk? Why are assault weapons necessary other than to bring down a whole lot of people at once? Are even the extremists in America intended to attack in the form of a whole army?
I'm sure they are. The NRA is not as powerful as it once was. You are right, we shouldn't sell those weapons.
Why are assault weapons necessary other than to bring down a whole lot of people at once?
I don't know why anyone would want to own one. I don't know why we allow such weapons to be sold.
Are even the extremists in America intended to attack in the form of a whole army?
The extremists in America now control the WH, the congress, academia and most of the media.
As they have for almost 6 years. Will he USA ever find its way back to sanity?
Do you recall what happened to Socrates and the democracy of Athens?
Is that inevitably going to be the fate of democracy?
Just be careful that religion does not overcome your democracy. There will be no Plato's apology.
I don't think we are in any danger of being overcome by religion.
Wasn't Socrates prosecuted for holding religious beliefs?
That may be where we are going.
From a vet's (my) perspective, it's about familiarity. I didn't want to go through the process to purchase an M4. At the time, I thought the next best thing was the AR-15. While there are similarities, firepower is not one of them. The AR isn't an "assault weapon" my any stretch. Reality is, I found it to be a very cheap knock off of the M4's currently being used by the military (the AR isn't used by any military).
I also purchased a weapon that IS used by the military. I carried a Mossberg 590 during my last trip to Afghanistan and used it for clearing operations. The 590 was far better than the M4 in these operations. Again, my decision to purchase this was about familiarity. I knew the weapon, it's capabilities and it's operation.
I use both the AR-15 and 590 for hunting and home protection.
Those are it's uses?
Depends on who you talk to. Many idiots think they are for "mass killing" of people.
I've noticed that those who use those weapons for killing people have long histories of mental illness. The latest on Salvador Ramos now features a video of him grinning as he held up a bag of blood-soaked dead cats.
That should have been an indication. But because nobody want's to put in the work to get this person help it was ignored. There were so many failures leading up to this an every other shooting.
As I've said, there are 3 components to these tragedies. All democrats see is the gun.
Democrats only see the gun because they think that is what they can control. In their feeble minds, "eliminate the gun, eliminate the problem." Too bad it doesn't work that way.
They have never been able to move the needle on that issue. Many gun owners are single issue voters. This incident in Texas may be the straw that broke the camel's back.
Looking at the Democrats and the left, they seem to be single issue voters. Notice how everything drops when something else happens? They are distracted too easy. Look how many times there was a shooting and something else happens. The shooting is dropped and forgotten. This will be as well unless we keep in it in their faces.
They have their single issue voters too. Have you noticed certain adult women that suddenly act insane when abortion rights are mentioned?
I've noticed.
Have you noticed that Canada is now doing something sensible about gun control - helps me to feel more secure about the safety of my daughter in Toronto. Can't say the same about my fear for the safety of my son and his family in Wisconsin, living in a country where you need be wary of being shot if you're a kid in school, a person shopping for groceries, praying in a place of worship, just walking down the street or even sitting next to a window in your living room.
What's sensible about it? They just disarmed law abiding citizens. It does nothing to the criminal element. Or do you honestly think that somebody who has no regard for the law will just change their mind because some putz politicians said so?
Add being in a Tulsa, Oklahoma medical centre to my list.
So you're saying it DIDN'T work in the UK, Australia and New Zealand so what the fuck let's keep the cycle going - more guns so people can buy them to protect themselves, causing more guns for deranged people and criminals to use, in order to increase even MORE guns to be made and sold and the cycle grows and grows and the beat goes on and up and on and up without an end in sight.
That's not really mental illness.
It's not depression or schizophrenia or someone struggling with the fact that they are on the autism spectrum. That is a deranged individual with psychopathic traits.
The problem here, the trap here, that libertarians should be worrying about, is the opportunity being created for big pharma to ram medications down the throats of people who don't want them and perhaps don't need them.
Some people would benefit from access to mental health care that most of us don't have or don't know how to find. And most of those people aren't a threat to anyone. Mental health services will help them get on more productively and happily with their lives. And they should be partners in the decisions being made about their mental health.
Other people need to be flagged for their warning signs.
And the biggest friggin' warning sign? Buying an AR15 and body armor.
I'm saying it is not going to work in the US. I honestly don't care about the UK, Australia and New Zealand.
Unless you’re planning to move to KT to vote, your opinion, while interesting, is irrelevant.
You’re so good with the snappy comeback.
Of COURSE it's not going to work in the US. The UK, Australia, New Zealand and now Canada are CIVILIZED countries. Only two solutions that I can see:
1. Issue guns and ammunition to every person over the age of 12, because it's so necessary to have guns to defend oneself.
2. Nobody leaves their home unless they're wearing body armour, especially kids going to school.
Welcome to the middle ages...
So why push it?
I'm not pushing it, I'm suggesting alternatives. My suggestion of armoured clothing is not so far-fetched...
American kids wearing Israeli-made bulletproof backpacks
The Bodyguard Switchblade has two ripcords the wearer can pull to release a chest protection unit that flips from back to front in a second. (LINK) ->
Alternatives that, by your own admission, won't work in the US. Hence my question - If you know it's not going to work, then why push it?
First of all I'm not PUSHING, I'm suggesting, and my first suggestion that everyone should have a gun to defend himself is not so far fetched since the most common excuse used by gun advocates is that people need guns to defend themselves, so why shouldn't EVERYONE be entitled to defend themselves?
My second suggestion of body armour is NOT unrealistic since as indicated in the link in my previous comment it's ALREADY being used by students in the USA, and there's no reason it can't also be made in smaller sizes.
If you're responding again, I'll reply in the morning - I'm going to sleep now.
LOL. Seems like my two suggestions are not so bad since nobody has taken the trouble to fault them except Jeremy, and I don't know why any gun advocate wouldn't think they are better alternatives to banning guns.
Ok, I'll play...,
Except not everybody should have access to a gun. The very young, the mentally unstable, etc. A suggestion that everybody should have a gun is just wrong. Not sure why you would entertain that except as a sophomoric jab. The right to self defense is what the 2nd Amendment is all about and has been confirmed by SCOTUS. People are entitled to defend themselves, but not everybody should have access to a gun.
No, that's not unrealistic. They are already marketing armored backpacks for children, have been for a few years now. The decision to wear some sort of body armor would be IMO a personal choice. It's not 100% sure to prevent death but it could help if one so desires.
Okay, so you're saying that to defend themselves "everyone" should not include those who have emotional/mental problems (a common sense limitation) and although you do not indicate a lower age limit you don't really disagree with my concept. However, we differ on my armoured backpack concept in that I think it should be mandatory whereas you feel it should be a choice. IMO drastic measures are needed in drastic times, and how can anyone say that the extent of the gun violence and mass shootings is NOT drastic times? The distribution of guns thoughout the USA has already gone too far for effective gun control legislation to ever DREAM of being passed, which is why I felt alternatives must be sought.
Try this, if a person is not to be trusted with a gun should be under some kind of supervision because there are other problems with them and they need some type of help. Under 18 should be under parent's supervision already.
While everybody has the right to defend themselves, there must be reasonable limits on access to guns. There's no argument among gun owners for that, reasonable restrictions must apply.
As far as body armor, I still believe it's personal choice. But I'm better able to defend myself than most children. I also do believe that schools must do a better job at security, both at the gates and internally.
You still cannot fully eliminate the possibility. As example may I point out Paris, November 2015.
I'm sure there are more examples than that in nations where people have or can get guns even though they may not be common.
A common excuse Americans have for getting themselves armed is so they are in a position to defend themselves and their loved ones, so then the more people will have guns, the more other people will obtain them - it's an exponential growth and I'm sure that the 120 guns per 100 people in America will continue to increase. As it is there are more guns in America than people.
Well, your initial point that I responded to was
And I responded that you cannot fully eliminate the possibility. Using the Paris attack as an example, guns exist. The genie is out of the bottle. You can never fully eliminate the possibility of a school shooting, but the potential can be reduced. It costs money and resources to better harden schools and it will not fully eliminate the possibility but it can make it harder to happen. For example, look how Israel handles school security and how many school shootings have they had in the past 20 years?
As I said, it takes money and resources to make the change and it takes the time to implement them. Unfortunately it seems that all the Democrats can do is reach to ban some guns. IMO rather than worry about how many guns are in public hands in the country our leadership should be spending time to discover why some people go on these shooting rampages and what can be done to reduce the possibility and what can be done to reach the person before it's too late. If it was truly a problem of just the gun, then with the number of guns in pubic hands we would see daily death counts in this country in the tens of thousands.
"Senate Republicans are signaling an openness to talks with Democrats on gun violence in the aftermath of back-to-back mass shootings."
"Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told CNN on Thursday that he tapped Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who recently returned to his home state after the recent shooting at an elementary school in Uvalde, to participate in bipartisan talks."
“What I’ve asked Senator Cornyn to do is to meet with the Democrats who are interested in getting a bipartisan solution and come up with a proposal, if possible, that’s crafted to meet this particular problem,” he said, stressing proposals directly related to the Uvalde shooting."
All McConnell is doing is creating a talking point for his propaganda. It's fake and he doesn't mean any of it
Do you think that it will work?
For McConnell it's all part of a stall game. Draw things out. Schumer might not introduce legislation if the republicans make some kind of phony case that they are in discussions. As usual, the republicans expect that with the passage of time, things will fade from the public's mind and then, of course, nothing will get done. Which is exactly what they want.
You think it will work, don't you?
Well, he is frequently successful.
Until after the elections.
Texas school shooting survivor smeared blood on herself, played dead: parents
https:// trib.al/yYzDVWm
Wow just wow. Quick thinking and resourceful. She actually thought to get her dead teacher's phone to call 911 while going into survival mode. What a story. Kudos young'n
Eleven. Shit kids shouldn't even see, much less reason a path through.
I just heard a woman at the NRA Convention being interviewed on TV state the following: "It didn't occur to me to make a connection between this shooting and a gun."
Who would make a connection between a shooting and a gun, right?
Mental health is certainly an issue, starting with her mental health.
Exactly, a shooting requires a shooter, a gun and cartridges.
Thank you, Captain Obvious.
When you heard about it, did it fail to occur to you to make a connection between the shooting and a gun?
Colonel, when I retired but that's not very relevant.
No, I made a connection between all three components, how about you?
There is an amount of people that just can not function and be a part of general society, some are dangerous, some potentially dangerous, some annoying, some can not take care of themselves, some just don't fit in ect ect. What does society want to do with them and how much are we willing to spend?
Do we confine them?
Do we be nice and let them loose and accept the risk?
Do we put the rights of "problem people" (I can't think of a better term) over the safety of rest of us?
How can we fix them?
How much do citizens have to give up because of `those who don't fit into society?
Do we go back to asylums? hopefully with better conditions
Will we accept that overpopulation and immigration are adding to this problem?
Somethings to think about
Are you talking about San Francisco or Portland OR?
They are some everywhere, but those places and some others have an overabundance of them
The best mental health reform imaginable would be to aggressively remove all guns from homes where those disallowed by current law to have guns reside!
Not just felons. Domestic abusers and drug addicts, those prescribed antidepressants, antipsychotics, antianxiety meds and other ineligible households...
Which NY law references these meds and the ineligibility for the possession of firearms? I can’t find one.
Under what law or laws?
That would increase the number of homeless people
JOE ROGAN: "This country has a mental health problem disguised as a gun problem
If a person can not be trusted with a gun should they be allowed to vote?
Very good question.
Murder victims by weapon used in the U.S 2020
Then the intended ban of handguns by Canada makes even more sense to me.
Exactly, even though gun powder was invented in China over 1,000 years ago, they learned as Mao Zedong said, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun". For over 50 years now, the state has banned the buying, selling and transporting of firearms without official permission.
Which is exactly why US Citizens should never give up our guns
Don't worry, charger 383, that will never happen. It's only the kids and teachers in school, people buying groceries, people in medical centres, people praying in a place of worship, people walking down the street and people sitting in their living rooms next to a window who need to worry.
I don't think that Buzz was excluding black folks from his observation. He knows that they also are kids, teachers, buy groceries, etc.
and a government, that is not deterred by citizens able to stand up for themselves, could after a while decide those same people need to be re-educated or have their processions and wealth redistributed.
I would think "educated" would have been a better word to use than "reeducated", but then I was talking about America, wasn't I, and not hiding by deflecting.
I was referring to a future I don't want to see in America and a past seen in Germany. I did not think I was hiding or deflecting nor did I want to insult you
I apologize for misunderstanding and misinterpreting your comment.
thanks, I would not want to insult a Newstalkers friend I have respect for
Most mentally ill people hurt nobody but themselves and the people who cry for them.
And psychopathy, which features prominently among people who would pick up a gun to mow down strangers, isn't actually a mental illness. It is a personality disorder.
Making it more humiliating to suffer from depression or schizophrenia isn't going to make anyone safer.
And there is this:
Republicans have more psychopathic traits than Democrats, according to a psychology survey
Lock em' up!
Completely agree.
Awful small sample size.
It seems to be a reproducible result:
Or at least, it was looked at before and they found a similar correlation.
Is this a shock that a political philosophy of "I've got mine so screw you" is going to be correlated with psychopathy?
You’ve got me, I don’t even understand my own psychology.
I hope everyone can at least enjoy this:
Research Suggests Politicians are More Likely to Be Psychopaths
The worst kind because they can get away with things