Is the gun control debate just a smokescreen?

[Ultimate Paragon]

This is not a discussion on gun control, per se.  Rather, it's a discussion on whether the gun control debate is a distraction from the problems with our mental healthcare system.  Personally, I think it is.  I can't help but notice that most of these mass shootings took place 20-30 years after the mental health system was gutted.  What do you think?

[Katsuro]

Short verison of my answer: no.

I do think though that the mental heallth care side of the issue gets ignored, but I see no evidence it's some kind of conspiracy.

[Damen]

Personally, I think it makes as much sense as blaming a hammer when you bang your thumb while driving a nail. Nevertheless, I don't think it's intended to be a distraction as much as it serves as a distraction from the current state of our mental health system and complacency with violent gangs.

Really, though, I think it stems from seeing something horrific happen, which causes people to feel helpless and in order to no longer feel that way they have a knee-jerk reaction to Do Something, anything, whether it actually helps or not.

Those are my thoughts, anyway.

[Sleepy]

I think it's the other way around. The state of our mental healthcare can be a distraction from the gun control debate in the US, which is especially irritating because the mentally ill are more likely to be victims when it comes to gun violence. Queen actually addressed the issue in this thread recently, and her post nicely sums up my thoughts.

[Ultimate Paragon]

I never said it was a conspiracy and I don't think it is.  However, I do think it's unfortunate.

[QueenofHearts]

I think the tail is wagging the dog, here. I've posted this before, of course ignored, that there is a stronger link between gun ownership and fatalities than there are between mental illness and such fatalities.

Which also proves what I've said before, mental health is a red herring designed to play on both our fear of the mentally ill and our sympathy towards them. Hence why most people who play this card don't give a shit about solving the problem.

Ninja'd by Sleepy: GUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRLLLLLL!

[Ultimate Paragon]

I think the tail is wagging the dog, here. I've posted this before, of course ignored, that there is a stronger link between gun ownership and fatalities than there are between mental illness and such fatalities.

Which also proves what I've said before, mental health is a red herring designed to play on both our fear of the mentally ill and our sympathy towards them. Hence why most people who play this card don't give a shit about solving the problem.

Ninja'd by Sleepy: GUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRLLLLLL!

I'm not saying that the mentally ill are more prone to violence than anyone else.  What I am saying is that good therapy could have nipped many of these incidents in the bud.

[kefkaownsall]

Or maybe rehab them and then let them have guns but not the other way around see

[lord gibbon]

The best metaphor I can think of is this: Gun Control is a precaution like seat belts. Certainly we hope it is unnecessary, and it would be best for people to be responsible, but just in case...

[Sylvana]

I think linking the two is making each a bit of a smokescreen for the other.

Both are completely separate, but equally important issues.
It is one thing to talk about how mental health care will nip mass shootings in the bud, but mental health care is needed for far more than just mass shootings. Far more people die from situations related to, or resulting from mental health problems than what happens during a mass shooting. These people need help, not because they might get a gun and shoot up a mall, but because they or others might be hurt regardless.

As for gun control, just like how the mentally unsound need help for their problems, most gun fatalities come from unfortunate accidents at home, like children shooting themselves of each other. Those are the situation gun control is hoping to avoid, not the mass shootings but all the other accidents and killings. You dont need to be mentally unsound to have a situation arise where your firearm kills you, or a member of your family.

Both issues are important. Both issues need to be addressed, and both issues should be address separately. Mass shootings shouldn't be the catalyst for these discussions, we should be trying to improve both all the time for all the other reasons. Mass shootings are just shockingly newsworthy and so get everyone into a media frenzy.

[Katsuro]

I never said it was a conspiracy...

You kind of did, actually.  In your topic title you use the word "smokescreen", a word which implies intent i.e. a diliberate attempt to divert people's attention.  Which would make it some kind of conspiracy.  Not necessarily an organised one, but a diliberate act to turn people's focus from one thing to another in order to serve someone's agenda none the less.

If that's not what you meant then you need to be more careful when chosing your words and refrain from using loaded terms that carry inherent sinister and devious undertones.

[QueenofHearts]

I think the tail is wagging the dog, here. I've posted this before, of course ignored, that there is a stronger link between gun ownership and fatalities than there are between mental illness and such fatalities.

Which also proves what I've said before, mental health is a red herring designed to play on both our fear of the mentally ill and our sympathy towards them. Hence why most people who play this card don't give a shit about solving the problem.

Ninja'd by Sleepy: GUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRLLLLLL!

I'm not saying that the mentally ill are more prone to violence than anyone else.  What I am saying is that good therapy could have nipped many of these incidents in the bud.

Preventing them from getting guns could also nip most of those in the bud. I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times, "the easier it is for ANYONE to get a gun, the easier it is for DANGEROUS individuals to get guns." Personally, I think there is something wrong with this country when I could buy an assault weapon and hundreds of rounds of ammunition in the morning, and shoot up a school full of children that afternoon. Even worse, there are gun groups trying to laxen such laws to the point that doing so would be even EASIER.

And if we're really serious about mental health, why not make it mandatory that to buy a gun you should get therapist approval in the first place, with regular follow-ups (say every five years)? This would never be supported, because like I've been saying, "mental health really just boils down to 'don't take my guns, take theirs.'"

Hence why I'm cynical of such a distraction.

[Canadian Mojo]

I think the tail is wagging the dog, here. I've posted this before, of course ignored, that there is a stronger link between gun ownership and fatalities than there are between mental illness and such fatalities.

Which also proves what I've said before, mental health is a red herring designed to play on both our fear of the mentally ill and our sympathy towards them. Hence why most people who play this card don't give a shit about solving the problem.

Ninja'd by Sleepy: GUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRLLLLLL!

I'm not saying that the mentally ill are more prone to violence than anyone else.  What I am saying is that good therapy could have nipped many of these incidents in the bud.

Preventing them from getting guns could also nip most of those in the bud. I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times, "the easier it is for ANYONE to get a gun, the easier it is for DANGEROUS individuals to get guns." Personally, I think there is something wrong with this country when I could buy an assault weapon and hundreds of rounds of ammunition in the morning, and shoot up a school full of children that afternoon. Even worse, there are gun groups trying to laxen such laws to the point that doing so would be even EASIER.

And if we're really serious about mental health, why not make it mandatory that to buy a gun you should get therapist approval in the first place, with regular follow-ups (say every five years)? This would never be supported, because like I've been saying, "mental health really just boils down to 'don't take my guns, take theirs.'"

Hence why I'm cynical of such a distraction.

The simple expedient answer is that a therapist with one set of views will find a large number of applicants predisposed to violence and one with the opposite set of views will find most applicants are well adjusted individuals. I'm not sure what would be worse: if state or municipal level governments dictated who those therapists that did the interview were, or just doctor shopping to find a shrink to fill out the form, because both are ripe for abuse.

Here in Canada we have to fill out if we have needed therapy on our applications and renewals. It's imperfect but it is a bit more manageable and consequently more practical for keeping people away from guns as needed. Of course, we have socialized medicine so everyone can seek out help as they need it. This is a gaping hole in the American medical system which means that the poor and under-insured won't have any flags to raise simply due to lack of access and is something that if you were to add a mental fitness component to a license you would have to address.

[QueenofHearts]

but we already have laws for doctor shopping and tort law provides some remedy for inept doctors who would just check off "no problem here" for Charles Manson. Not to mention, for both, a doctor so biased one way or the other would certainly face repercussion from their licensing agency. And if my idea of how mental health would play out is not the case, then what, just preclude people who were depressed when they were 14? I mean, all we hear is how "mental health" is the answer, but no specifics. I'm just pointing out why I view the "mental health" card cynically, it just comes down to "take their guns, not mine."

And this again does nothing to address how our gun laws are so lax anyone could get a gun and ammunition without a sweat. The only thing in the way is their money.

Edit to clarify: I said "anyone" because I didn't think of children in this country. They would probably have a hard time passing of age to buy a gun. But children aside, anyone with the cash can get a gun in this country.

[Canadian Mojo]

but we already have laws for doctor shopping and tort law provides some remedy for inept doctors who would just check off "no problem here" for Charles Manson. Not to mention, for both, a doctor so biased one way or the other would certainly face repercussion from their licensing agency. And if my idea of how mental health would play out is not the case, then what, just preclude people who were depressed when they were 14? I mean, all we hear is how "mental health" is the answer, but no specifics. I'm just pointing out why I view the "mental health" card cynically, it just comes down to "take their guns, not mine."

And this again does nothing to address how our gun laws are so lax anyone could get a gun and ammunition without a sweat. The only thing in the way is their money.

Edit to clarify: I said "anyone" because I didn't think of children in this country. They would probably have a hard time passing of age to buy a gun. But children aside, anyone with the cash can get a gun in this country.

I actually agree with your cynicism on what a good amount of the sound bites you hear amount to but I thought I should point out the flaw in your solution if mental health was taken seriously.

The questions about mental health etc. on our application forms ask for the previous five years. License renewal, unsurprisingly, is every five years so being depressed at 14 would potentially mean no guns until 19 here. Checking off the box doesn't necessarily mean an automatic refusal anyway, just deeper digging into the details of the file.

As you point out, all of this ignores the elephant in the room. How you eliminate this without linking a specific gun to a specific individual (a.k.a a gun registry) I don't know, but I do know that in Canada we theoretically have the same problem only limited to long guns. Handguns are very tightly controlled and so consequently most of our problems are literally imported from the U.S.