I've been listening with sadness to much of the discussion surrounding Dylann Roof and the murders at Emmanuel AME church. More than once I have heard people refer to him as insane, comment about how "sick" his actions were, or describe his actions as those of a crazy person.
I want to say this as clearly as I can. Dylann Roof's actions were not due to mental illness. He is not crazy. He is not sick. He is evil and his actions were evil. To identify him with those who are mentally ill does great disservice to those who truly are mentally ill and places them under suspicion that they do not deserve. If murdering 9 people equals mental illness then what does mental illness equal? If we can label this person as "sick" and then lock him away and forget him, what do we do with the truly sick people in our communities and even in our own families?
Please, please, please, do not call this evil young man crazy or sick or mentally ill... he is not. And those who are mentally struggle enough with their illness that they do not need to be branded with suspicion of being murders.
Showing posts with label mental illness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mental illness. Show all posts
Thursday, June 25, 2015
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Welcome to Crazy Town
I don't know whether to laugh, cry, or move to another country when I think about the current political mess in Washington. We have Tea Party folk willing to shut down the government because all of the normal ways of changing a law are out of their reach. So, to defund the ACA, which they are afraid will succeed, they are willing to directly hurt thousands of Americans and add one more drain on a still very fragile economy. Of course, they are willing to fund parts piecemeal - fund the WWII Memorial in DC but forget the EPA and the FDA... you get the picture. While FOX News calls it a government "slimdown," the reality is that it is being felt throughout the economy and is impacting the lives of all Americans, though clearly some much more than others.
And then comes the debt ceiling. I have to say that I don't fully understand all of the ins and outs of the debt ceiling. I do understand that if it is not increased, that the US government cannot pay all of its bills. That would be devastating to the economy of the US and the world. I also understand that even the threat of a default ripples through the skittish economy as Wall Street reacts to the slightest insecurity in the financial system. The last time they threatened to breach the debt ceiling (2011), the Dow dropped 2000 points and the US credit rating was impacted. A 2000 point drop is a serious hit on investments, people's 401Ks, retirement plans, etc. and that is just the impact on the US market. Because much of the world's markets rely on US Treasury bills as the safest investment in the world, a hiccup there is felt everywhere. Already the worldwide market seems to be reacting to the possibility of a default.
Here's the scary part... there are Republicans who are saying that a default wouldn't be a big deal, They are irresponsible. Every economist is saying that at best it would be an economic catastrophe. At worst, it would plunge us into a worldwide depression that would make the Great Depression look like a Tea Party (excuse the pun). Of course, these are the same folk who ignore the clear scientific consensus that Global Warming is real and caused by human activity, dismiss the clear scientific consensus that evolution is the way we got here, and even question whether children should be taught science and the humanities. Why would they listen to economists?
There is a worse group. They are seeing breaching the debt ceiling as the best strategy to destroy the government they hate. They believe it would be catastrophic but that would provide the easiest cover to dismantle Social Security, Medicare, the EPA, the FDA, public education, and virtually all of the other parts of government that help secure the common good. They want to destroy the US government as it exists. If the first group of Republicans are irresponsible, those in this group are treasonous.
I almost want to believe those folk are truly crazy. I feel sympathy for people with mental illness. I know it is not their fault and that they need treatment. If those Republicans are not crazy, the other options are not good. You could say they are stupid... or you could say they are very, very badly misled... or you could conclude they are evil. I like crazy better. Maybe with some thorazine they'd be OK. Why we've allowed the inmates to run the asylum is another question... addressed in the next paragraph.
There is a third group of Republicans, possibly the most despicable of all. They are the more moderate Republicans who see the other two and are afraid to stand against either. They are afraid they will be Tea Partied in the next primary and will lose their power and position so they acquiesce to the crazies and allow them to set the agenda and chart the course even though they know it is insane. They are motivated by self-preservation and lust for power, not by the best interests of their constituents or for the nation as a whole. They are not crazy. They are despicable.
I have said before that I believe in a two party system. Actually, I think we need more viable parties to represent a broader spectrum of views at the tables of power. I think decisions are best made when reasonable people of a variety of understandings struggle together to make compromises that work. I see nobody acting reasonably on the Republican side. Literally, nobody. I think they all need to be voted out of office so that another coalition of folk who truly represent conservative values and understandings can come to the table and wrestle responsibly. Let the far right come to the table as well... but do not allow the tail to wag the dog any longer. (FWIW, I'd like to see the Democrats split into multiple parties so that the true liberals get a voice at the table as well.)
And then comes the debt ceiling. I have to say that I don't fully understand all of the ins and outs of the debt ceiling. I do understand that if it is not increased, that the US government cannot pay all of its bills. That would be devastating to the economy of the US and the world. I also understand that even the threat of a default ripples through the skittish economy as Wall Street reacts to the slightest insecurity in the financial system. The last time they threatened to breach the debt ceiling (2011), the Dow dropped 2000 points and the US credit rating was impacted. A 2000 point drop is a serious hit on investments, people's 401Ks, retirement plans, etc. and that is just the impact on the US market. Because much of the world's markets rely on US Treasury bills as the safest investment in the world, a hiccup there is felt everywhere. Already the worldwide market seems to be reacting to the possibility of a default.
Here's the scary part... there are Republicans who are saying that a default wouldn't be a big deal, They are irresponsible. Every economist is saying that at best it would be an economic catastrophe. At worst, it would plunge us into a worldwide depression that would make the Great Depression look like a Tea Party (excuse the pun). Of course, these are the same folk who ignore the clear scientific consensus that Global Warming is real and caused by human activity, dismiss the clear scientific consensus that evolution is the way we got here, and even question whether children should be taught science and the humanities. Why would they listen to economists?
There is a worse group. They are seeing breaching the debt ceiling as the best strategy to destroy the government they hate. They believe it would be catastrophic but that would provide the easiest cover to dismantle Social Security, Medicare, the EPA, the FDA, public education, and virtually all of the other parts of government that help secure the common good. They want to destroy the US government as it exists. If the first group of Republicans are irresponsible, those in this group are treasonous.
I almost want to believe those folk are truly crazy. I feel sympathy for people with mental illness. I know it is not their fault and that they need treatment. If those Republicans are not crazy, the other options are not good. You could say they are stupid... or you could say they are very, very badly misled... or you could conclude they are evil. I like crazy better. Maybe with some thorazine they'd be OK. Why we've allowed the inmates to run the asylum is another question... addressed in the next paragraph.
There is a third group of Republicans, possibly the most despicable of all. They are the more moderate Republicans who see the other two and are afraid to stand against either. They are afraid they will be Tea Partied in the next primary and will lose their power and position so they acquiesce to the crazies and allow them to set the agenda and chart the course even though they know it is insane. They are motivated by self-preservation and lust for power, not by the best interests of their constituents or for the nation as a whole. They are not crazy. They are despicable.
I have said before that I believe in a two party system. Actually, I think we need more viable parties to represent a broader spectrum of views at the tables of power. I think decisions are best made when reasonable people of a variety of understandings struggle together to make compromises that work. I see nobody acting reasonably on the Republican side. Literally, nobody. I think they all need to be voted out of office so that another coalition of folk who truly represent conservative values and understandings can come to the table and wrestle responsibly. Let the far right come to the table as well... but do not allow the tail to wag the dog any longer. (FWIW, I'd like to see the Democrats split into multiple parties so that the true liberals get a voice at the table as well.)
Friday, January 11, 2013
random thoughts on gun control
The discussion continues regarding gun control and there are lots of arguments that are coming from the pro gun folk that need to be addressed and lots of fallacies or at least misleading ideas being promulgated from those who are for gun control. Here are a few of the issues as I see them.
1. Violent crime has decreased in the US over the past few decades including the murder rate. Indeed, our rates of violent crime in the US are lower than many of the nations that are raised up as examples by the gun control folk. At the same time, our gun violence rate is significantly higher than all of those places.
2. Assault weapons represent a very small percentage of guns used in murders. They are disproportionately used in mass violence, but that too represents a very, very small percentage of gun deaths. While 26 were killed at the Sandy Hook school, some 700 have died by guns, almost all one at a time and the vast majority by handguns, since then.
3. A significant proportion of gun deaths occur in gang violence.
4. The rates of violent crime are higher in large cities with large populations of folk living in poverty.
5. The number of guns in a given area is directly proportional to the number of gun deaths. Whether this is a direct correlation or coincidence is debatable. For example, the south has one of the higher rates of gun ownership and of gun deaths. It also has a poverty rate that is higher than many other areas of the country.
6. All of the statistics are clear, owning a gun makes one more likely to die from a gun than not having one and those statistics are consistent everywhere. If we look at #1 again, that explains why in England there is a significantly higher violent crime rate, a lower murder rate, and an amazingly lower rate of death by gun.
7. We live in a violent society, but other cultures are violent as well. Video game playing is higher in Denmark, for example, where the rate of death by gun is extremely low. Ditto in Japan. Again, if we look at #1, England has a higher rate of violent crime, but much lower rate of death by gun.
8. We have significant problems with mental health care and with poverty in our country that directly impact violent behavior although often in ways that are counter-intuitive when one watches the news or listens to talk radio. For example, the mentally ill are more likely to be victims than perpetrators of violence. The same is true of the poor.
9. Gun ownership is going down. Still, the myth of redemptive violence is prevalent in our culture and we still have a love affair with guns that borders on idolatry.
10. There are significant differences in how to understand the 2nd Amendment.
11. There are literally millions of guns already out there.
Some implications of all of that...
1. Banning assault rifles and high capacity magazines will not lower the rate of death by gun significantly. It will lessen the possibility of mass murders, but they are extremely rare.
2. For gun control to make a dent in the raw numbers, handguns must be included in any regulations and some kind of buy back would be required to begin to lower the number of guns in the general population. Many possible laws, for example how guns must be stored, would be virtually impossible to enforce.
3. There are clearly other cultural issues like mental health care and poverty which must be addressed in order to change the level of violence, but the removal of guns from the equation cannot be dismissed as a way of lowering the level of violence.
4. Education is required to begin to dispel the myths that owning guns = protection or having more handguns in the general population lowers the incidence of violence. These ideas are widely held and clearly not true according to any of the objective studies.
5. Any gun control changes that will have a significant impact will involve conflict and serious discussion regarding the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.
What do I think?
I think all assault rifles and high capacity magazines should be banned. Currently owned weapons of this sort would be subject to a government buy-back and destroyed. Any found afterwards would be confiscated and destroyed and the owners face a substantial fine. Collectors owning such weapons would have to have them modified to be non-functional and inspected. Armor piercing ammunition would also be banned. I think concealed carry permits should be available only under the most extreme cases. Nobody should be able to purchase any gun without significant background checks, education, and licensing both for the owner and for the weapon. Nobody under age 18 would be allowed to own or use a gun for any purpose including hunting or target shooting. Ammunition would be tracked. By law, all guns must be stored in locked cabinets and ammunition must be stored separately and also locked. Stand your ground laws would all be repealed. A public service announcement campaign would begin, telling the truth regarding the statistics of gun violence. I think that would be a start.
1. Violent crime has decreased in the US over the past few decades including the murder rate. Indeed, our rates of violent crime in the US are lower than many of the nations that are raised up as examples by the gun control folk. At the same time, our gun violence rate is significantly higher than all of those places.
2. Assault weapons represent a very small percentage of guns used in murders. They are disproportionately used in mass violence, but that too represents a very, very small percentage of gun deaths. While 26 were killed at the Sandy Hook school, some 700 have died by guns, almost all one at a time and the vast majority by handguns, since then.
3. A significant proportion of gun deaths occur in gang violence.
4. The rates of violent crime are higher in large cities with large populations of folk living in poverty.
5. The number of guns in a given area is directly proportional to the number of gun deaths. Whether this is a direct correlation or coincidence is debatable. For example, the south has one of the higher rates of gun ownership and of gun deaths. It also has a poverty rate that is higher than many other areas of the country.
6. All of the statistics are clear, owning a gun makes one more likely to die from a gun than not having one and those statistics are consistent everywhere. If we look at #1 again, that explains why in England there is a significantly higher violent crime rate, a lower murder rate, and an amazingly lower rate of death by gun.
7. We live in a violent society, but other cultures are violent as well. Video game playing is higher in Denmark, for example, where the rate of death by gun is extremely low. Ditto in Japan. Again, if we look at #1, England has a higher rate of violent crime, but much lower rate of death by gun.
8. We have significant problems with mental health care and with poverty in our country that directly impact violent behavior although often in ways that are counter-intuitive when one watches the news or listens to talk radio. For example, the mentally ill are more likely to be victims than perpetrators of violence. The same is true of the poor.
9. Gun ownership is going down. Still, the myth of redemptive violence is prevalent in our culture and we still have a love affair with guns that borders on idolatry.
10. There are significant differences in how to understand the 2nd Amendment.
11. There are literally millions of guns already out there.
Some implications of all of that...
1. Banning assault rifles and high capacity magazines will not lower the rate of death by gun significantly. It will lessen the possibility of mass murders, but they are extremely rare.
2. For gun control to make a dent in the raw numbers, handguns must be included in any regulations and some kind of buy back would be required to begin to lower the number of guns in the general population. Many possible laws, for example how guns must be stored, would be virtually impossible to enforce.
3. There are clearly other cultural issues like mental health care and poverty which must be addressed in order to change the level of violence, but the removal of guns from the equation cannot be dismissed as a way of lowering the level of violence.
4. Education is required to begin to dispel the myths that owning guns = protection or having more handguns in the general population lowers the incidence of violence. These ideas are widely held and clearly not true according to any of the objective studies.
5. Any gun control changes that will have a significant impact will involve conflict and serious discussion regarding the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.
What do I think?
I think all assault rifles and high capacity magazines should be banned. Currently owned weapons of this sort would be subject to a government buy-back and destroyed. Any found afterwards would be confiscated and destroyed and the owners face a substantial fine. Collectors owning such weapons would have to have them modified to be non-functional and inspected. Armor piercing ammunition would also be banned. I think concealed carry permits should be available only under the most extreme cases. Nobody should be able to purchase any gun without significant background checks, education, and licensing both for the owner and for the weapon. Nobody under age 18 would be allowed to own or use a gun for any purpose including hunting or target shooting. Ammunition would be tracked. By law, all guns must be stored in locked cabinets and ammunition must be stored separately and also locked. Stand your ground laws would all be repealed. A public service announcement campaign would begin, telling the truth regarding the statistics of gun violence. I think that would be a start.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
