Submitted by Charlton Stanley, guest blogger
(Otteray Scribe)
What is mental illness? It’s a hot topic in the news recently, because of proposed gun control legislation. I saw a photo yesterday of people holding up a huge sign saying, “Keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill.”
There is far more to the demonization of the mentally ill than just the firearms issue. It spills over into the Federal Aviation Administration and the Department of Transportation. It is not just guns; it is airplanes and trucks as well. This brings us to the core question of, “What is mental illness?” The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) is the current handbook for classifying mental disorders. DSM-V is in the final stages of development and will be published in May 2013. That is only next month.
Which brings us back to the original question of what exactly is mental illness? In New York, a man’s home was raided, his Concealed Carry Permit revoked and guns confiscated because someone told the police he was taking an anti-anxiety medication. I have received emails in the past week from several friends about this issue. One of them is a vet, M→F transgendered. She is concerned about being able to renew her own Concealed Carry Permit (CCP). As a veteran and avid target-shooting hobbyist, she is well trained in gun safety and use. As a transgender woman, she is a target and prey according to FBI statistics. Hate crimes against LGBT people are at a 14-year high.
According to the DSM-IV-TR, “Gender Identity Disorder” is one of the mental illnesses. In the DSM-V, it is renamed “Gender Dysphoria.” While claiming it is not a mental illness, the fact that Gender Dysphoria is in the DSM-V in the first place makes it suspect in the eyes of many. Two days ago, she sent this excerpt from a local outlet:
The enforcement action started on March 29th when New York State Police asked the Erie County Clerk’s Office to pursue revoking the man’s pistol permit because he owned guns in violation of the mental health provision of New York’s newly enacted guns law called the SAFE ACT.
The allegation turned out to be untrue and his guns returned to him. As it turned out, the police, sua sponte, initiated the action. The only lawyer involved in the matter was the man’s own attorney.
Erie County Clerk Chris Jacobs said, “When the State Police called to tell us they made a mistake and had the wrong person…it became clear that the State did not do their job here, and now we all look foolish.”
Flaws in the mental health reporting provisions of the NY SAFE Act were blamed for the misunderstanding. The county clerk added, “Until the mental health provisions are fixed, these mistakes will continue to happen” (source: WKBW-TV)
The bigger issue is how come taking an anxiolytic prescribed by one’s family doctor disqualifying? It would be interesting to know just how many of those raiding officers, and their supervisors, are taking medication for anxiety, depression or sleep.
Is mild anxiety a reason to stigmatize someone, and possibly violate his or her civil rights? It gets better. The FAA Medical Examiner will not allow psychiatric medications for any class of Medical Certificate. If a psychiatric medication, it is an automatic disqualification. Several non-psychiatric medications are disqualifying as well. When Tagamet (cimetidine) was first released to treat ulcers and hyperacidity, it disqualified one from holding an FAA Medical Certificate in order to fly. I first heard about that from a friend who was an Aviation Medical Examiner at the time. He told me the FAA put Tagamet on the list because, “It acts on the central nervous system.”
What is mental illness? Some say it is anything that is in the DSM. However, as I have pointed out in court many times, the DSM is a handbook put together by a committee. Everyone has heard the old joke about what a committee produces: “An elephant is a mouse designed by a committee.”
The new DSM-V will be expanding the definition of ADHD. The definition of PTSD is supposed to be clarified in the final definition. Homosexuality was removed from the DSM-IV. If it was a mental illness, the why was it removed? The answer to that is simple. It is not a mental illness.
Let’s look at posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a single example of a single disorder. PTSD is classified as an anxiety spectrum disorder. Symptoms include feeling anxious, vivid dreams or memories of a traumatic event, and avoidance of situations that might remind one of the traumatic event. Those are called “triggers.” Some claim that only combat veterans can suffer PTSD. That is nonsense. The original trauma can be anything causing one to fear for their own life or safety, or that of others. No one knows how many Americans suffer from PTSD, but the NIMH estimates 7.7 million adults have diagnosable PTSD. That is about 3.5% of the population. 22% of Vietnam veterans returned with PTSD. My personal impression is that number is too low by a significant margin. Many people with PTSD have never been diagnosed. Why? Because they are afraid to talk to a doctor or clinical social worker.
How many rights should be taken from all those citizens and veterans, simply because they have PTSD?
When some of the most prominent mental health experts in the world cannot agree what mental illness diagnoses are, how are lawmakers, judges and law enforcement officers supposed to know? Is being transgendered a mental illness? How about homosexuality—oops, never mind, they took that out of the DSM-IV. There are many people with bipolar disorder walking around and you will never know it, especially if they are taking their medication. Should a person with well-controlled bipolar disorder be allowed to drive an 18 wheel truck, fly a light airplane, or own firearms?
It is interesting that the FAA has created a new class of aircraft, call Light Sport Aircraft” or LSA, which do not require an FAA medical certificate to fly. A light sport pilot may fly with a valid and current driver’s license. Glider pilots can exercise the privilege without a medical certificate.
This brings us to driver’s licenses. If a person, who is taking Xanax or some mild anti-depressant is not allowed to own firearms or fly a Cessna 172, why can they drive? An average automobile or pickup truck weighs almost two tons. They drive on two-lane roads at 55 or 60 mph. That means on a two-lane road, they are passing within two to four feet of each other with a closing speed of about 120 mph.
Just what is mental illness, and where is that bright line drawn for different activities and privileges of ownership? Think about it. Your physician has to give you a formal diagnosis in order to write a prescription for any medication. Almost any Primary Care Physician, especially family doctors, will tell you that a large percentage of their patients are receiving medications for diagnosed psychiatric conditions. The most common are depression and anxiety, either situational or endogenous.
Alcohol, in my opinion, is much more dangerous than any antidepressant or anxiolytic on the market. Yet, alcohol is legal in most areas. The individual is responsible for keeping their alcohol level under the legal limit, without any government official monitoring them. The rule for pilots is, “eight hours from bottle to throttle.” In other words, if you intend to fly, there should be at least eight hours between the last drink and flying. My rule was always 24 hours just to be on the safe side. Alcohol is involved in far more assaults, shootings, auto crashes, and suicides than any psychiatric medication I know of. That is because alcohol is a disinhibitor.
It is unfortunate that Congress saw fit to suppress data collection on firearms violence back in 1996. I see many pronouncements on violence related to firearms, but without real science, those pronouncements are meaningless. Last January, President Obama lifted the 17-year drought on data gathering. Some members of Congress and the NRA are demanding that the data not be used to promote or advocate any position on violence. Fine. That is the way data should be gathered—content neutral. That honors the null hypothesis approach to research. However the results of the data fall, it should be accessible to other researchers. It must not be buried.
Legislation and administrative rules that limit rights are already having negative effects on people with mental health issues. They do not get treatment, or ask their doctor for advice. Sometimes they lie. Sometimes a patient will show up, insist on paying cash, register under a John Doe alias, give a vacant lot as an address and use 888-88-8888 for a Social Security number. Most people who need mental health medications or treatment refuse to seek help. If anyone thinks that is a good thing, they are not paying attention.
As my father used to say, “Anybody with one eye and half-sense could have seen that one coming.”
HIPAA is supposed to keep your records private, but they are accessible with a court order. Alternately, any agency issuing a license or certificate can insist on the applicant signing a HIPAA complaint medical release form. Sign the form or you do not get your license. One must always beware the Law of Unintended Consequences.
Here are a few tidbits to chew upon. Please discuss. Where is that bright line?
“As for those who call people who keep and use firearms as a hobby, it does not win friends and influence people to call them hyperbolic names, such as , “gun fetishist.” “gun nut,” and “shills for the NRA” when many liberal and progressive firearms owners hate the NRA.”
I’ll cop to it, I hate the NRA. They were for background checks before they were against it when the gun manufacturers became the benefactors of the NRA. It is one thing if you have a legitimate position based on belief. Then I have no problem with you or your group, even if I do with your position. But, when you as a group or a person sell out your beliefs because of the $$$$ then for sure I can and will hate you when what was sensible is now nonsensible only because your backers may lose profit dollars
Elaine,
It’s not a question of simple need; it’s a question of right. The ability to drive is a privilege; not a right.
Census reports to not create or destroy natural rights.
What a majority of people want or don’t want has nothing to do with a natural right. For example, if we woke up tomorrow and found that the 13th amendment had been repealed, it does not follow that the repeal of said amendment makes slavery any less an act of tyranny.
Tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right which no one has a right to; no matter how many people may be in the majority.
Arkansas Lawmaker Mocks Boston ‘Liberals,’ Says They Wish They Had Assault Rifles
By Josh Israel
Apr 19, 2013
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/04/19/1895381/arkansas-lawmaker-mocks-boston-liberals-assault-rifles/
excerpt:
On Friday morning, Arkansas State Rep. Nate Bell (R) tweeted that “liberal” Boston residents likely wished for assault rifles and high-capacity magazines, as the manhunt for Boston Marathon bombing suspects continued.
Bell, a second-term legislator and National Rifle Association life member, has previously supported allowing guns in churches as “removing a state mandated restriction on religious freedom.”
His tweet said:
“I wonder how many Boston liberals spent the night cowering in their homes wishing they had an AR-15 with a hi-capacity magazine?”
*****
My response to State Rep. Bell:
Many “Boston liberals” didn’t cower on Monday afternoon when they rushed to aid the wounded on the streets of their city without any thought for their own safety. It is folks like you, Rep. Bell, who cower when they don’t have guns. A gun does not make one a man–and a man does not need a gun to be a man!
raff asks, “Just because the task is hard and difficult does not denigrate or negate the need to start that task.”
***************************************
How? Any steps to stop violence must be of a type, and managed in a workable manner that actually has a chance of achieving the desired goal. Taking guns will not stop crime, murders or other violence. Recall the first murder on record was not only fratricide, it was accomplished with a heavy chunk of bone. Stopping crime will never be about firearm ownership, but getting at deeper root causes.
So as Jim Brown asked, “What’cha gonna do?”
Bob,
Maybe not all Americans live in urban settings–but the great majority do:
More Americans move to cities in past decade-Census
By Lisa Lambert
March 26
Mar 26, 2012
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/26/usa-cities-population-idUSL2E8EQ5AJ20120326
Excerpt;
(Reuters) – More Americans are living in cities now than a decade ago, according to U.S. Census data released on Monday.
The most urban state is California – one that dominates the popular imagination as a land of empty deserts, open beaches and thick redwood forests – the Census numbers showed.
In 2010, a total of 80.7 percent of Americans lived in urban areas, up from 79 percent in 2000.
Conversely, 19.3 percent of the U.S. population lived in rural areas in 2010, down from 21 percent in 2000.
At the same time, the population of urban areas grew by 12.1 percent, much faster than the country’s growth rate of 9.7 percent from 2000 to 2010.
*****
Don’t people who live in rural settings need their own vehicles for transportation even more than people who live in urban areas where one will often find some forms of public transportation?
Bob,
I’d say more people need a car than need a gun. Many people drive to work so they can earn money. They also drive to the grocery store and shop so they can put food on the table. Most people don’t hunt vegetables and fruit–or even animals for meat these days. I’ve lived to the ripe old age of sixty-six and have never found the need to carry a gun to protect myself.
OS,
I would just add that the principles behind the right to keep and bear arms are much more relevant than the issue of whether laws in violation of said principles could possibly be enforced.
For if we judged laws simply based on whether they could be enforced; where would we be?
Mike S.: “Firearms were already ubiquitous at thr time the Constitution was written, cars and planes were not. Given the paucity of public transportation options in most of this country I would think that there should be a right to drive that is probably more imperative to a citizen’s existence than a firearm. The fact is that at the founding of this country a firearm was a necessity of life. Are you really suggesting that is the case today?”
Mike,
Your analysis is not only bereft of principle, but arrogantly assumes that the entire country lives in an urban/suburban setting.
Simply from a social compact perspective, I have much more right to keep and bear arms than I do to own and operate planes or automobiles. The right to KBA goes directly to the inalienable right to life as well as the natural right to resist tyranny.
“Personal weapons are what raised mankind out of the mud, and the rifle is the queen of personal weapons.”
“The rifle is a weapon. Let there be no mistake about that. It is a tool of power, and thus dependent completely upon the moral stature of its user. It is equally useful in securing meat for the table, destroying group enemies on the battlefield, and resisting tyranny. In fact, it is the only means of resisting tyranny, since a citizenry armed with rifles simply cannot be tyrannized.”
“The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.”
—Jeff Cooper, The Art of the Rifle
So yes Mike, I have much more of a natural right to that which will put food on the table and protect me than any alleged civil “right” to ‘get around’ in an urban setting.
OS,
From your writing, you know there are crazy people on both sides of this issue….. fanatics…….. they will stop at nothing to convience either side that they are wrong…..
Swarthmore,
Just another reason to get the money out of politics. The people cannot truly have their voices heard if corporations and lobbying groups can purchase votes with massive contributions.
Swarthmore mom,
From what I’ve read recently the organization Gun Owners of America may wield as much–if not more–power than the NRA in the halls of Congress:
Gun Owners of America Celebrates Defeat of Gun Control Amendments
Post by Sarah Posner
April 18, 2013
http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/sarahposner/7046/gun_owners_of_america_celebrates_defeat_of_gun_control_amendments/
Excerpt:
Gun Owners of America is rejoicing this morning, following the defeat of (among other amendments) the Manchin-Toomey Amendment that would have expanded background checks for gun sales:
You guys did it. We all did it – together!
For four months, the laughing hyenas on MSNBC and in the White House have been cackling hysterically about the “bitter clingers” who actually own guns and value the Second Amendment.
Well, who’s laughing now?
GOA proudly promoted the lie that the amendment would have created a national gun registry. From Jennifer Steinhauser at the New York Times this morning:
As for the N.R.A., while some saw the group’s leader, Wayne LaPierre, as meandering and on defense after the Connecticut school shootings in December, seasoned lawmakers heard something far more telling: the group, which once supported new background checks, would no longer abide them. As a result, before a single hearing, bill or speech on the Senate floor, the legislation was in grave trouble. Then the Gun Owners of America chimed in, attacking Republican senators who showed any interest in compromise, arguing that a national gun registry would arise from the bill.
The Senate’s rapid dismissal of what just weeks ago seemed the most achievable goal — a measure to extend background checks to gun buyers not currently covered by the federal system — sent the question of how and if to regulate firearms back to the states, where new laws both to restrain and expand gun rights are now fermenting.
GOA is proud of the attention it has received of late, particularly for how it has managed to yank the NRA further to the right. At the top of this morning’s alert, it cites Steinhauser’s previous reporting on its lobbying against background checks:
Schumer’s spokesman Brian Fallon took note of Gun Owners of America’s role in the debate, tweeting a link to the [New York] Times profile and saying the group ‘is making deal on even background checks extremely hard.'” – TPM Media, “Democrats Blame Gun Owners of America for Gun Control Setback,” April 8, 2013
Julie Ingersoll and I profiled GOA back in 2010, when it celebrated another victory, the Supreme Court’s decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago. As the Times noted in an editorial earlier this month, the group’s executive director, Larry Pratt, said in an interview for that piece that when it comes to firearms, “we’re not really talking about a right but an obligation, as creatures of God, to protect the life that was given them.”
Elaine,
Excellent links. It is amazing that years after Columbine and countless other mass shootings, it is still too early to talk about sensible gun control measures.
OS,
Just because the task is hard and difficult does not denigrate or negate the need to start that task.
Firearm Legislation and Firearm-Related Fatalities in the United States
Eric W. Fleegler, MD, MPH; Lois K. Lee, MD, MPH; Michael C. Monuteaux, ScD; David Hemenway, PhD; Rebekah Mannix, MD, MPH
JAMA Internal medicine
Published online March 6, 2013
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1661390
Excerpt:
Main Outcome Measures The outcome measures were state-level firearm-related fatalities per 100 000 individuals per year overall, for suicide, and for homicide. In various models, we controlled for age, sex, race/ethnicity, poverty, unemployment, college education, population density, nonfirearm violence–related deaths, and household firearm ownership.
Results Over the 4-year study period, there were 121 084 firearm fatalities. The average state-based firearm fatality rates varied from a high of 17.9 (Louisiana) to a low of 2.9 (Hawaii) per 100 000 individuals per year. Annual firearm legislative strength scores ranged from 0 (Utah) to 24 (Massachusetts) of 28 possible points. States in the highest quartile of legislative strength (scores of ≥9) had a lower overall firearm fatality rate than those in the lowest quartile (scores of ≤2) (absolute rate difference, 6.64 deaths/100 000/y; age-adjusted incident rate ratio [IRR], 0.58; 95% CI, 0.37-0.92). Compared with the quartile of states with the fewest laws, the quartile with the most laws had a lower firearm suicide rate (absolute rate difference, 6.25 deaths/100 000/y; IRR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.48-0.83) and a lower firearm homicide rate (absolute rate difference, 0.40 deaths/100 000/y; IRR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38-0.95).
Conclusions and Relevance A higher number of firearm laws in a state are associated with a lower rate of firearm fatalities in the state, overall and for suicides and homicides individually. As our study could not determine cause-and-effect relationships, further studies are necessary to define the nature of this association.
The total number of annual firearm fatalities in the United States has been stable over the last decade.1- 2 From 2007 to 2010, the range was 31 224 to 31 672 fatalities per year.1 There is substantial variation in firearm fatality rates among states, however, with the average annual state-based firearm fatality rates ranging from a high of 17.9 (Louisiana) to a low of 2.9 (Hawaii) per 100 000 individuals during these years. In 2010, firearms killed 68% of the 16 259 victims of homicide. In the same year, there were 38 364 suicides, of which 51% were by firearms.1 Beyond the loss of life and nonfatal traumatic injuries, the financial cost of firearm injuries is enormous. In 2005, the medical costs associated with fatal and nonfatal firearm injuries were estimated at $112 million and $599 million, respectively, and work loss costs were estimated at $40.5 billion.1
Obama has now learned what other presidents had to learn as well — the NRA controls gun politics on Capitol Hill and will continue to do so until dethroned. The bill put forth by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) wasn’t close to what gun control advocates wanted, but it still went down in defeat.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/nra-how-they-won-90315.html#ixzz2Qv89spIC
Twelve facts about guns and mass shootings in the United States
Posted by Ezra Klein
December 14, 2012
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/
Excerpt:
When we first collected much of this data, it was after the Aurora, Colo. shootings, and the air was thick with calls to avoid “politicizing” the tragedy. That is code, essentially, for “don’t talk about reforming our gun control laws.”
Let’s be clear: That is a form of politicization. When political actors construct a political argument that threatens political consequences if other political actors pursue a certain political outcome, that is, almost by definition, a politicization of the issue. It’s just a form of politicization favoring those who prefer the status quo to stricter gun control laws.
Since then, there have been more horrible, high-profile shootings. Jovan Belcher, a linebacker for the Kansas City Chiefs, took his girlfriend’s life and then his own. In Oregon, Jacob Tyler Roberts entered a mall holding a semi-automatic rifle and yelling “I am the shooter.” And, in Connecticut, at least 27 are dead — including 18 children — after a man opened fire at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
If roads were collapsing all across the United States, killing dozens of drivers, we would surely see that as a moment to talk about what we could do to keep roads from collapsing. If terrorists were detonating bombs in port after port, you can be sure Congress would be working to upgrade the nation’s security measures. If a plague was ripping through communities, public-health officials would be working feverishly to contain it.
Only with gun violence do we respond to repeated tragedies by saying that mourning is acceptable but discussing how to prevent more tragedies is not. “Too soon,” howl supporters of loose gun laws. But as others have observed, talking about how to stop mass shootings in the aftermath of a string of mass shootings isn’t “too soon.” It’s much too late.
Bron,
For many of us who support gun control, it’s about trying to stop gun violence in this country…it’s about trying to stop the killing of innocent children and adults.
*****
States with strictest firearm laws have lowest rates of gun deaths, Boston Children’s Hospital study finds
By Deborah Kotz and Brian MacQuarrie
The Boston Globe
3/6/13
http://www.boston.com/dailydose/2013/03/06/states-with-strictest-firearm-laws-have-lowest-rates-gun-deaths-boston-children-hospital-study-finds/zaIGbTdwtVaPFiGlCfSlTP/story.html
Excerpt;
As Congress debates whether to toughen the nation’s gun laws, a study from Boston Children’s Hospital found that states with the highest number of gun laws have the lowest rate of gun deaths due to homicides and suicides.
The research, published online Wednesday in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine, analyzed gun laws in all 50 states as well as the total number of gun-related deaths in each state from 2007 through 2010. It found that fatality rates ranged from a high of 17.9 per 100,000 people in Louisiana — a state among those with the fewest gun laws — to a low of 2.9 per 100,000 in Hawaii, which ranks sixth for its number of gun restrictions. Massachusetts, which the researchers said has the most gun restrictions, had a gun fatality rate of 3.4 per 100,000.
“Critics of gun laws have said that gun laws don’t work, but our research indicates the opposite,” said study leader Dr. Eric Fleegler, a pediatric emergency medicine physician at Boston Children’s Hospital. “In states with the most laws, we found a dramatic decreased rate in firearm fatalities, though we can’t say for certain that these laws have led to fewer deaths.”
Previous research evaluating the association between firearm laws and a reduction in gun-related injuries and fatalities have yielded mixed results, but most have focused on one or two specific laws rather that the total amount of restrictions in a given state. A Georgetown University study found that mandating background checks for gun purchases, for example, was linked to reduced suicide rates in those over age 55 but did not reduce murder rates or suicide rates in younger people.
The new study found that states with the most laws had a 37 percent lower rate of suicides by firearm and a 40 percent lower rate of homicides compared with those with the fewest laws.
Bron,
“And if you really think about it I dont think you can trust a group of people who dont think you have a right to exist. That is implicit in the anti-gun crowd message whether they mean for it to be or not.”
I think that most people who are advocates of some form of gun control legislation do not feel that gun advocates don’t have a right to exist. That’s what I’d call hyperbole!
smom:
I am not a member but I am starting to think it might be time to buy a lifetime membership.
this isnt about gun ownership for me but about a fundamental right which is the right of self defense. If you cannot protect your life, then all other rights are meaningless. And if you really think about it I dont think you can trust a group of people who dont think you have a right to exist. That is implicit in the anti-gun crowd message whether they mean for it to be or not.
So for me it isnt about guns at all but about my liberty and my right to exist. I dont know about you, but I will come down on the side of individual rights and the individuals right to exist every time. It is why I am pro-choice, why I am pro-gay marriage, why I dont want a particular religion running my government.
Otteray,
“From a psychological point of view, I fail to see little difference between playing golf and shooting sports. Both sports have the goal of improving skill and accuracy. Both target shooters and golfers compete not only against others, but against oneself to achieve a better score than last time out.”
Are we getting far afield? Do you think people who are in favor of some gun control legislation want to take away everyone’s guns–including the guns of hunters and other sportsmen? BTW, my father was a sharp shooter/expert marksman. He was awarded badges/medals when he was in the army. That said, he wanted nothing to do with guns when he returned home after WW II.
*****
“As for those who call people who keep and use firearms as a hobby, it does not win friends and influence people to call them hyperbolic names, such as , “gun fetishist.” “gun nut,” and “shills for the NRA” when many liberal and progressive firearms owners hate the NRA.”
Who has used those hyperbolic terms in our discussion on this blog? Can one be for gun control legislation and not be accused of being emotional…of using hyperbolic terms?
OS, The votes just might be there in the next generation of legislators. Maybe the NRA is as powerful now as they ever will be, and this is the beginning of their demise. In that scenario, your use of the word, “NEVER” is not accurately descriptive of the future. I have been for gun restrictions most of my life but have never seen the younger generations as involved as they are now.