Ouch, more guns and mental health....

Because it's been all over the place again.

Where it all starts, mainly, is the 2nd amendment right.  People quote pieces here and there and bungle the words, then tell how whichever half of it they have quoted supports their position.

It's actually my feeling that people should sit down and read the constitution on its own without and bias, point of view, articles, or research at least once every 10 years.  It's quite an enlightening experience.  Even taking one bill of rights by itself feels out of context when you read through the whole thing, but here I will begin by quoting the bill (as ratified by the states):

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

We know this came about so American could defend themselves against the British, right?  It, of course, because useful almost immediately, but that was the initial purpose.  Now people want the right to have guns to be about any number of things.

First, it makes sense that they want to be prepared or feared by their own government, but let's face it, that's unrealistic because the government NOW will always have bigger and badder weapons.  They own us.  It sucks, but we are going to have to be way more creative than weaponry to defend ourselves in an upheaval.  Besides, this requires an organized militia which we haven't seen since the days of limited weaponry like the Civil War.  Right or wrong, the South had complete right to form a militia and defend their beliefs.  That is what, I believe, the amendment is about; not about the right to have an arsenal.

Second, some just want to defend themselves against criminals, but there are as many stories about people pulling a gun on a robber and getting shot as there are stories of people actually defending themselves.

I could go on and on and frankly I do think that people do have the right to bear arms, but here is a very enlightening article about the NRA.  The gist is that the NRA was originally a group to support gun control in a way that would allow people to own guns, but force it to be in a very responsible way.  (At least, that's my watered down, quick interpretation). Now, I believe the NRA could care less about responsibility.  They feed the comments like "If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns" and "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" into the mouths of all those who follow them, but whenever I hear those, I don't think the person is defending their right to have guns, I think they are followers who don't think for themselves.  It's rather silly.

I addressed the former quote last time, but really I keep thinking that, by a similar line of thought, I believe that the only reason for a person to own a gun would be to kill someone.  Not protection, not hunting purposes, nothing other than to KILL.  Now, I don't believe this which is why I also don't believe the line about criminals.  It's silly. 

Speaking of silly, I want to address the latter now.  A post has gone around FB a little where a guy tells the story of how he put his rifle in a wheelchair (so it could get around) and left it at the front door.  The day went as usual.  The gun killed no one.  Proof, of course, that guns don't kill people.

While I found this amusing and clever, I heard Eddie Izzard in the back of my head... "Yeah, but the guns help."  I addressed this last time, too, but poisons and knives are things used by people committing a personal, targeted crime.  Guns are really the only easily available weapons used to kill strangers on massive scales. 

No one is saying a gun is a criminal.  What I am saying is that when someone with a repeating rifle can walk into a school or movie theater and kill a dozen people before anyone has time to react, we have a problem.  WE CLEARLY HAVE A PROBLEM.  People are scrambling to feel safe and fix it, but gun owners could care less about other people wanting to feel safe or stopping these things from happening again, right?  The perception they leave is that they are heartless beasts who just want their guns and protect them like we're trying to euthanize household pets who have never attacked anyone.

Curses - I have lost the article and cannot find it, but this week in our local paper, our (not so) wonderful representatives got together and talked about guns and mental health.  Their stance is that mental health gets pulled into the gun debate unfairly.

Well, I can see it is unfair in the sense that labeling these murderers and mentally ill makes people who have mental illness and are not violent feel like they are being labeled a threat, but are we not, as a society, beyond that?  Do we not, for the most part, defend mentally ill people who have not shown signs of danger?  I mean we no longer throw them into sanitariums or deny the fact that they have mental issues at all.  I think for the most part we are enlightened and if we focus on that, we will become even more so.  That's what we need.

I also wonder how they can say that.  I mean, if it's true that the majority of people who have committed this enormous crimes have been on anti-psychotic, anti-depressant, or other mental health drugs, can we really say it's NOT related?  If they were on these drugs and were not mentally unstable, then the problem lies in prescribing these drugs (which I will reiterated, I do believe they are OVER prescribed and UNDER monitored). 

I'm not trying to create an unfair stigma of mental health here.  What I really hope for is a push for better understanding by the public as well as extension in research.  I want to help people and I think there are people who need help and don't seek it.  I want it to be seen as seriously as heart disease.  What I see is that if people keep saying "I'm mentally ill and if you blame these crimes on mental illness, you're hurting me" or otherwise taking things personally, then we'll never see it as seriously as heart disease.  It's time to recognize that people have problems and have the right to get help for it, but that sometimes it goes awry and we should fix it any way we can even if that means managing the mental health industry more.

And there is a modicum of truth, I suppose, to the stigma.  I mean, people tend to think all sociopaths and schizophrenics are violent ticking time bombs.  Thousands upon thousands of people suffer from these serious problems, but the mental health industry can only prescribe meds and send them home.  Some of them don't like what the meds do, so they stop taking them.  This cannot be put on the psychiatrist, but the majority of those who don't take them never commit a crime or hurt other people.  Yes, we should not think that these people are ticking time bombs, but at the same time, they need help.  They deserve help.  That help should be easy to get and plentiful without locking them up in some facility.  They may never commit a crime, but they could hurt themselves and is that any better?  Even if they never hurt themselves physically, there are certain symptoms that come with it that you cannot deny are mentally hurtful to those around which is enough reason to need help.  Any way you look at it, it need to be a better system - related to the gun argument or not.