Gun Control and the "Stigma" of Mental Illness

In current American society (Jan 2013) there is a stigma attached to having a "mental illness." This arises from several situations; the historical perception that the mentally ill are all violent and dangerous, the adverse light that Hollywood still paints the mentally ill with, and the lack of social and governmental support for differentiating the ill from the deranged by appropriate treatment. The current social furor over gun control in the wake of the Newtown, CT school shooting there is a focus on the role of mental illness in these incidents of domestic terror. In several incidents the perpetrators were under care for mental illness, but still had access to guns designed for mass slaughter.

Whether there should be general public access to such weapons should not be the focus of the debate. What should be in focus is the question of responsibility for proper training in the use of any firearms.

Being mentally ill does not mean that the sufferer is "insane" (which has the specific meaning of not being able to discern the difference between "right" and "wrong") and doesn't remove the person from being responsible for their actions. There is also no accepted definition of mental health that can adequately determine whether any given individual is or is not a "safe" person to carry a gun. Many folks who should not have access to guns because they may be dangerous to themselves or others have absolutely no history of mental illness. Additionally, the ability to be a "safe" gun carrier can change with astounding swiftness in the face of non-psychological health problems.

The rush to change the background check system for gun ownership has some good points, but also is fraught with a dangerous false perception that those who "pass" the check are safe to have guns. Unless there are means of assuring there are not huge cracks in the system for people to fall through, the current set of solutions being proposed are, perhaps, worse than useless in preventing future gun incidents.

There is also now more stigma that will be associated with seeking assistance from the mental health system: doing so will prevent one from exercising their constitutional rights, and that is a slippery slope that we have no knowing of what other rights may be curtailed. I suspect that adding to this stigma will lead to a more active avoidance of seeking help for mental health issues than currently exists.

I have some anecdotal evidence that there are folks who are actively avoiding help for mental distress in that I personally know some folks whom I would not trust with a gun in my presence who absolutely reject any suggestion that they consider getting some assistance for their problems. Yet a few of these people do have guns and speak of their use in occasionally threatening ways. (They make statements, all too often, along the lines of "I'd love to shoot that ______")

We might handle this by setting up a means of alerting authorities to these folks by "turning them in", but that leads to a culture of betrayal that further erodes the web of trust that a community needs to thrive. This web of trust is already suffering from the distrust that Americans feel for their government and the politicians that run it. The effect of the government using its powers to curtail even more civil rights and assume more control will do more to harm society than nearly anything else they could do.

No, this is not saying there is a conspiracy on the part of the politicians and power elite to attain more control. It is important to remember the pragmatic advice of "never attribute to malice the results of stupidity". In my opinion, the helter-skelter running around on the part of different factions within the government and society argue against there being a unified shadow government running things in secret. Divide and conquer is a good method of control, but the absolute lack of a coherent, all-explaining theory argues against any conspiracy.

I don't have any answer for the gun control debate, and I see valid arguments for and against both/all sides of the debate, but U hope that somehow America will muddle through to some dynamic compromise that allows us to survive a few more decades.

Control Freak parents

I just don't get it when parents are real control freaks.

What I mean is, once a child has reached legal majority (18+) the parents still exert extreme control on them as long as they are living at home. For example, controlling access to the internet and/or the computer, where/when they can leave the house, how far they can go away from the house, who they can have as friends, the foods that they may or may not eat, and other such extreme controls.

I understand that "as long as you live in my house you follow my rules" justifies a larger amount of control when they are living at home, but the restrictions have to be reasonable.

I suspect that this lack of understanding rises from the easy relationship I had with my parents. There were rules and boundaries, but they were reasonable and could be explained rationally. There was no "because I said so" arguments, there were reasons -- such as knowing where you were taking the car in case an emergency situation arose (especially before cell phones existed), Additionally, as situations changed (as I got older and more capable) the restrictions could be discussed and even negotiated.

Sure, I rebelled against lots of things as a teenager (I think it is a necessary part of growing up) but the restrictions were imposed by society or school, not my parents. In many cases I actually had my parents support in the fight against the "rules". One consequence of this was a very smooth development of my sexual identity -- I had more trouble with my siblings than with my parents.

But I still don't "get it" when a friend of a friend is being subject to parental control to the extent of being told that he can not even sit on his bed, he can only lie on it if he is going to sleep or is ill. This FOAF also is not allowed to eat or drink "normal" foods and beverages that make up American culture. Absolutely no soda pop, no red meat, God-forbid he partake of a slice of pizza! And there is no apparent rhyme of reason to the restrictions. It seems to me that the control is almost "cult-like" in its restriction.

I'd love to see some comments about how folks dealt with this while you were growing up, or how you deal with restrictions on your own children.

Help me out here.