‘We need to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill,” say the TV commentators, liberal and conservative alike.
Pondering the Navy Yard mass shooting, they try to make sense of the senseless. Their comments about guns and mental illness nagged at me until I finally sat down to write to you, the public.
At first, the idea that guns and mental illness are an unacceptably dangerous combination sounds like common sense, so, you may ask, what is there to write about?
Well, first, as a psychologist, I know that people with mental illness aren’t a homogenous group — mental illness includes such disparate conditions as attention deficit disorders, anxiety, autism, dementia, depression, insomnia, learning disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder and tic disorders.
Most mentally ill people, even most who hear voices, are no more violent than the rest of us. Mental health professionals know that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Thus, the best warning that Navy Yard shooter, Aaron Alexis, might commit a violent act was his history of arrests for gun violence, not the voices in his head. Furthermore, to suggest the Second Amendment does not apply to people with mental health problems is, frankly, discriminatory.
The pundits making these remarks clearly have not considered the ramifications. Since most mental illness does not last a lifetime, but comes and goes, will the government require gun owners to report to their local mental health clinic for an annual check-up? Will gun shops refer potential buyers to the nearest psychiatrist for clearance (or Prozac)? At gun shows, will psychologists armed with Rorschach inkblot tests greet customers at the door?
Seriously, do we want people with mental illness to avoid getting help because they fear being reported to the ATF? Mental health professionals are already required by law to warn potential victims, and sometimes authorities, if a patient makes a serious, credible threat to harm someone.
How, then, can we prevent more mass shootings and other gun violence? Whether public safety is better served by more guns or by fewer guns is an argument I will leave to the gun experts. My expertise is in mental illness, and my argument is that public safety, and the broader public good, would be well served by improving access to mental health treatment. For example, if police officers who responded to Alexis’s call for help just weeks before the shooting had access to an on-call mental health specialist, might lives have been saved? Possibly.
Many obstacles block access to mental health services, including inadequate insurance coverage, lack of transportation and social stigma. Reducing these obstacles can help to prevent mass shootings, and there are many other benefits to be gained as well. Mental illness has high costs to society; examples include increased absenteeism from work and school, unemployment, disability, poverty, crime, delinquency, domestic violence, child abuse, school drop-out, teen parenthood, drug abuse, drunken driving and behavior-related medical problems. Improving access to mental health treatment can reduce these costs, saving money in such diverse areas as health care, education, law enforcement, incarceration and social welfare programs.
In addition, improved access to mental health treatment can help increase tax revenues by increasing worker productivity. So, in these days of divided politics, whether you cherish your right to bear arms or whether you advocate for gun control, here is something on which we can all agree: improving access to mental healthcare in America — it’s a win-win.
By Catherine Smithmyer
The writer is a Maryland licensed psychologist and director of Chesapeake Bay Psychological Services on Kent Island. Reach her at [email protected]
Stuart Godwin says
Editor,
I’d like to weigh in on this, offering my take as a retired FBI Agent. Sadly, unless we are willing to give up freedoms, there is no way to keep guns totally out of the hands of the mentally ill — or any other group. A proxy purchase can always be made; firearms can be stolen (as was the case in the Connecticut school shooting); and these days, guns can be made with desktop printers (which can also be stolen.
Guns can, of course, be banned, but we have seen how that works. Washington, D. C. has very strong anti-gun laws, and may well have the highest percentage of illegal concealed carried in the US., and a high murder and armed robbery rate.
We can try to deter gun crime by harsh penalties, but we have also seen how that works, over the past hundred years or so.
If you want freedom, you are going to have to accept the fact that it comes with a price. If you are not willing to pay that price, you are going to have to accept control of your every action.
Welcome to the real world.
Mary Wood says
Editor,
Ms. Smithmyer – thank you for speaking out about the horrifying lack of help for our citizens who have this difficult disease. Personally, I feel guns should be only available to hunters and sportsmen, police and the army. I see no need for ordinary folk to have weapons and ammo, designed for use in battle.
We have become a nation of fear and suspicion.
Stephan Sonn says
Editor,
I am most likely to cease commenting or replying here shortly but the writer here serves up such a classically misunderstood subject that I cannot resist.
When does psychiatry which addresses individual behavior pattern jump to a view that so-named conditions have a group commonality that is nourished and nurtured in a sub culture that is in itself mentally ill. Cato institute a libertarian icon makes light of the postulation that both Tea Party and latter day Libertarians are chips off the same block. That puts Cato in an odd spot particularly since Koch all but owns Cato after recent differences were “settled” and Koch completely owns Tea party using them as thugs at first and currently.
The gun culture at the lobby end of the presentation is quite insane. So at what point do you deem the instigators of the group dynamics as the facilitators selling the insanity emerging to the mob. So there are loner killings and the group dynamics presenting at different levels. Is there actually a mob psychology that is addressed as an art like psychology? I
I have heard that the study of crowd dynamics has etched a place in formal science beyond simple spinning.
Stuart Godwin says
Editor,
After submitting my earlier letter, I realized that I had failed to state that I am in almost 100% agreement with Dr. Smithmyer. Her points were well taken, and clearly stated, and she is correct in her desire for better access to mental health treatment as a means to identifying the potentially violent. As the laws now stand, however, it is almost impossible to take preemptive action to head off the violence, and this is as it should be — we do not want a society where people can be arbitrarily incarcerated without due process of law. I stated earlier, we most definitely pay a price for freedom, and when we are no longer willing to pay that price, we will have totalitarianism and arbitrary rule.
Matthew Daley says
Editor,
I agree fully with the writer that access to mental health care needs major improvement and hopefully the Affordable Care Act will make major strides in reducing financial barriers to that care. Nonetheless, individuals with serious mental issues and a history of violence and/or substance abuse are more likely to commit violent crimes than either the general population or the population of people experiencing mental issues at any particular moment. The courts have consistently upheld limits on Second Amendment Rights applicable to several classes of people, including those adjudicated as mentally ill and Maryland has just enacted legislation (albeit flawed) requiring notification to the authorities in a number of circumstances involving the mentally ill. Had that reporting requirement been met in the cases of the Virginia Tech or the Aurora theatre shootings the tragedies could well have been avoided.
Harold A. Maio says
Editor,
‘We need to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill,”
“The” mentally ill has risen to such prominence that it is not seen. It has appeared twice from our supreme court and its appearance phased no one. No one can dispute the psychology behind it (the Jews, the Blacks), it must first be recognized.
Many obstacles block access to mental health services, including inadequate insurance coverage, lack of transportation and social stigma.
Actually it is prejudice. When it is accurately named, someone’s prejudice is not my stigma, change will come. Refusing the “stigma” of rape changed many lives, as did refusing the “stigma” of Jews.
Stephan Sonn says
Editor
https://www.dianebederman.com/religion-in-the-public-square/religion-and-politics/350-the-stigma-of-being-jewish
Mr. Maio’s comments deserve the dignity of being seen in context. If not by deliberating of the paradox here.then by use of the link
He is obviously a serious scholar. The diversity of past liberalism has enabled its enemies. in a way not intended.
The management of mental illness and guns is not the only topic maimed by the corrupted national forum.