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.

Enough is enough

Today I am sad.  More shootings.  More dead people.  Kids.  Young adults.  Drug runners.  No matter.  Humans.  They are all dead humans.

When Sandy Hook Elementary's incident became public, I felt so sad for all those kids, the ones who died and the ones who saw, heard, and experienced far more than any 5-12 year old should.  I hurt for the victims, their families, employees.  The world hurt like they did when two boys went into Columbine and the guy went into the Amish school - not to mention the guy at the mall, the sharp shooter on the tower, the kids who went on a killing spree in the 50s.

At what point is it enough?

The first thing out of the mouths (and trickling off the fingers) of certain Americans is "gun control."  Yes, this is first.  Why?  Because the NRA is smart enough to wait about 2 weeks... just long enough for the emotions to settle... before bringing up their second amendment rights.  I swear, if an hour after a huge, nationally covered incident, the NRA put out ANY public statement, people would realize how broken that group is, but alas, they are smart-broken because they don't speak up right away.  I'm convinced they know that if they spoke too soon, they would lose some of their followers; specifically the few who are not as ignorant as the blind followers.

This is not about the NRA or gun control, though.  For a few brief hours, the words on the lips of educated humans was "Mental Health".  This worked for a minute or two until extremists started pointing out how many murderers have been committed by people on medications or just coming off of medications.

Yes.  They were on medications because they had mental health issues.  You can see it as the medications leading to the problems.  I see it as someone knew there was a problem, but we didn't have the resources or knowledge to monitor them and intervene before the killings.

I do think most mental health drugs are over-prescribed and under-monitored.  This does not mean that prescribing them to people who eventually murder was a mistake.

I will say that it is incredibly naive to read the articles and information on natural solutions to mental health problems and say that the chemical drugs are the problem.  Supporters are, in my perception, people who have never had a serious mental health complication or seen one in a loved one.  Maybe they have and that person used chemical solutions which did not work perfectly.  What I know for certain is that the herbal/natural side focuses highly on success and blames failure completely on the mistakes of the individual.  It blames them and says it's their fault for not doing enough, but I have known for a fact that you can eat the way they suggest, exercise, and take their herbal solutions and still it might not be enough.  The natural community would simply find something new to blame.  At least the psychological field would say "Let's try to help."  That feels like hope.  When you have followed the herbalists suggestions, you run out of hope.

But it is never cut and dry, is it?  I'm huge on herbs and natural solutions to problems.  I avoid taking over the counter medications, am not on any prescription medications, but when I feel ill, the first thing I check is what I'm eating and what herbs I can take to get through it.  OTC is what I go to when I need more and prescription is only when the two others just aren't cutting it (which means practically never in my life).  I know the insane amounts of information out there supporting herbal/natural solutions.  I know the claims that if you hit on just the prefect combination, you'll cure cancer, never get the common cold, and avoid depression.  The problem is that just like the "success" of Zoloft, the information is biased, tainted, and incomplete.  Despite that, Zoloft people will always want their Zoloft and St. John's Wort people will always want their St. John's Wort.

The world is full of grey.  Opinionated people, imo, generally seem to take the information presented, stick it in their box, and think it's black and white.  The way I see it, there is too much evidence to both support and doubt every issue that it's no wonder opinionated people argue back and forth.  They're both right and they are both wrong.

After the shootings, I made the mistake of mentioning the need for better mental health and was bombarded with completely one-sided information about why the prescription meds are the cause of the problem (just listing what meds these violent people are on is NOT evidence that the meds are the problem, btw) which I felt completely discounted the actual point.  Yes, they are and have been on these medications.  They also are or have been diagnosed with a mental health issue which hasn't been handled properly.  Maybe they need yoga.  Maybe they need herbs.  Maybe they just need therapy to be more readily available and considered important.

In the line of only talking about the evidence YOU want to point out, other countries have better health care coverage (100% covered in the UK, Canada, etc) and they have hardly any spree killings.  Not non-existent, though, but far fewer per capita.  They also have gun control laws in those countries.  Of course, there are a thousand other factors that could account for the differences so just like I think the fact that these killers have been on meds or drugs is about as relevant as the gun control laws in other countries (which is semi-relevant, but by no means the complete story)

Aside from the medication argument, the coverage for mental health is lacking in this country.  We do not offer coverage as completely or simply as medical assistance.  Sometimes people don't know where to go.  Sometimes people can't afford the co-pay.  Sometimes there is no coverage at all and often people don't know how to find the professional to help them.

There are many things to consider here. How often does the family say they had no idea?  What's to account for this?  Slight possibility, they know that if they answer the questions of media in any way saying that the shooter had problems, the public will turn on them quickly because if the shooter has died in the incident, who is there to yell at?  The family will do in a pinch, right?

More likely I think it might be genetics.  If a person is, say, bipolar, it is likely their parents are bipolar and their siblings are bipolar.  It becomes normal to deal with those things in that house and since it didn't lead to murder or suicide within the family, how are we supposed to know the person needed help?  Exactly why there should be periodic checkups for mental health.

Once a year, insurance covers a visit to your physician for a physical.  It covers me going to my GYN annually which, if I had, might have prevented me getting a hysterectomy at age 36.  Point being, you can't force anyone to go, but perhaps if the encouragement is there...not just the option, but the encouragement and pressure, then more people could get the help they need. Even that won't stop it completely, but how many problems might it solve?  Aside from serious violence related to these shootings, I know a percentage of the population skips therapy and self medicates with alcohol, illegal drugs, etc.  Don't look at it like this will solve all of our problems, but in a world where the problems continue to grow and increase in intensity, I'll take weeding out a few problems just to deal with the rest and if we had better health coverage, maybe we would see less of this self medicating and the drug dealing industry would not be quite so heated up.

Once a year, a therapist can decide if more treatment is needed and if so, the insurance should cover it as followup or perhaps a monthly copay.  Sometimes a person who needs therapy goes once a week or more.  In contrast, let's say your physician finds out you have diabetes.  He gives you a treatment, sends you home, and follows up in 6 weeks, 3 months, then 6 months (depending).  Even if you have to pay a copay of $30, that's $30 every few months.  A therapist sees you weekly and it's $120 a month.  Perhaps they see something serious and for the first month they want to see you twice a week.  $240.  I don't know anyone whose financial situation is secure enough that $240 isn't going to add to the stress (or $120 for that matter).  That is, of course, if your insurance company recognized psychology at all.  Yes, evil Obama care is requiring better coverage for mental health.  Clearly he's out to screw us, huh?  Yeah, sarcasm probably not called for in this argument, but people are already blaming Obama for care that hasn't even kicked in yet so really I'm just mocking the uneducated or blind-trusting republicans who, again, just want to think it's easy and don't actually take in ALL the facts; just the biased reports of their side. (I am, for the record UNhappy with some of the aspect we know of Obama, care, too, but I'm willing to see how it shakes out in the wash)

Of course, then we have the problem of testing.  Therapists can ask questions, but can't be held accountable for this sort of thing.  You take blood or urine from a patient as a physician and you know with confidence the person they are testing can't learn how to fake it and you can know that the numbers mean certain very specific things.

The psychiatric industry has a much more difficult job.  Yes and no questions aren't enough to determine a person's mental health.  More research is needed here, but instead we keep sending people to the moon and looking at psychology as a "soft" science.  Is it soft because it's less important or is it soft because it isn't completely understood?

And guns.  It's a hard subject to breach.  I know why we have the right to bear arms, but it's also obvious why guns are behind these huge shootings.  Psychologically if a mentally ill person did not have access to guns, they would not automatically pick up a knife.  research shows that it's so often a gun used in these crimes because it is impersonal.  Yes, stabbing happen, but they are almost always personal attacks.  Passing laws that limit guns and require better screening is not taking away any rights.  It's just making things safer.  Without getting huge, I just have one last comment.

"If you criminalize guns, then only criminal will have guns."  And for the most part, they want to use them on each other.  Maybe we should just let the problem solve itself.