Kimberly Yonkers: Mental health isn’t the gun issue we need to address
This pointy-head professor at the Yale School of Medicine, Kimberly Yonkers, writes in the pages of the Washington Post that it’s “dangerous” to blame mental health for gun violence in the United States;
The elimination of severe psychiatric conditions would not solve our problems with gun violence. Despite the sensationalism of shootings that occur in schools or against police officers, they are infrequent events compared to the totality of gun violence.
And while individuals with severe psychiatric disorders like schizophrenia or bipolar illness are more likely to engage in violent behavior, the frequencies of cases of these disorders are small. And the vast majority of people with severe and persistent mental illness are non-violent. According to one distinguished study, we would see only a 4 percent reduction in gun violence if mental illnesses were eliminated.
Yeah, well, closing the “gun show loop hole” would prevent only 1 percent of criminals from getting their grubby paws on guns according to the FBI, but that doesn’t stop the gun grabbers from whining about the need to close up that boogeyman.
And while the frequencies of the cases of mental disorders appearing in society, the frequencies of those mental disorders showing up in investigations of mass casualty shootings is close to 90%, at least, in my recent memory. Tucson, Aurora, Sandy Hook, etc….
Gun violence is 20 times more prevalent in the United States than in other highly developed countries.
[…]
In sum, the American mental health-care system is just about on par with other high resource nations, but the United States has a dramatically higher rate of gun violence.
And if you take out the guns that are already illegal, wielded by people forbidden by existing laws to possess a firearm, that rate falls off substantially. The highest rates of gun crimes are in cities like Washington, DC, New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles…places that already have strict gun control laws. Legal gun owners who obey the laws aren’t committing the gun crimes.
As I said, the high profile shootings that the media likes to talk about are almost always committed by mentally deficient people. Some of them find easy access to guns because people like Ms. Yonkers wants us to ignore them as potential threats to society. She wants to tighten restrictions on legal, law-abiding, mentally-capable gun owners (with her eye on taking guns out of the hands of all people) instead of taking down the engines of the media-driven call to make all guns illegal – the mentally ill.
But it is time to recognize that adequate treatment for people with a mental disorder is a distinct problem from gun violence.
So why can’t we put them in NICS system and prevent them from buying guns?
If one accepts the data from CNN’s Gun Violence Project, over 80 people die from gun violence in a 24 hour period. How long do we have to wait before meaningful changes in legislation that reduce access to guns?
Conservatives want to reduce gun access to the mentally ill, while Yonkers wants to reduce the number of guns available to the rest of us who don’t have mental problems. Ms. Yonkers, you’d have more credibility if you would find out how many of those 80 deaths every 24 hours were committed with illegal guns in the hands of people who are already restrained from gun possession by current laws. My feeling is that number would fall significantly. And your credibility would rise accordingly.
Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists
Well said Jonn, but alas, liberals always have been and always will be as allergic to facts, common sense, and logic as hippies are allergic to soap, water, and honest work!!!
“If one believes CNN statistics…”
Because liberal-aligned news outlets never have an agenda and have never been caught disseminating false information to advance it–oh wait…
I also love her “compared to other developed countries” crap. I’ve heard that dishonest argument so many times. Look, they say, (random semisocialist European country) only had 10 shootings in this period while America had 50! Then I point out that (random semisocialist European country) has a population of 25 million people, while America has 300+ million, so the number of incidents per 100,000 is actually significantly LOWER in the armed USA than the disarmed (random semisocialist European country). So then I get to explain to them about fun things I learned in Statistics class like sample size and standard deviations (they rarely know what those mean), and how their “statistical analysis” fails even at the most basic levels (they usually respond by declaring me to be an idiot for pointing out the intellectual failures of their argument).
I also point out that street cops of (random semisocialist European country) routinely walk around with MP5s and G36s (I usually have to explain what those are) in hand in policing the “peaceful” gun-free population of (random semisocialist European country), despite the restrictions on private firearm ownership and the allegedly lower crime. How often do you see beat cops in the US with M4s at Low Ready while they stand in line at Starbucks?
So we have an argument based on statistics from an unreliable source, using incompatible sample sizes, failing to account for pretty much everything in the actual mathematical discipline of statistics (just because I hated that class doesn’t mean I didn’t get good at it), and failing to account for important factors in the respective samples. We have a word for that where I come from. Several, actually.
FAIL
BULLSHIT
LIES
I’m not sure where you run into people who quote things like total shootings versus, say, shootings per capita, but all the numbers I’ve seen focus on the latter. So, for example, let’s take Sweden and the USA – in the former you have a rate of homicide of roughly 0.19 per 100K, whereas in the USA it’s roughly 2.83, a 15x increase. Again, this is per capita, it isn’t a comparison of Sweden’s 9.6M against the US’s 316M. Also, Sweden’s street cops routinely carry P226s, not MP5s or G36s.
So where do you feel these statistics break down? And while most here feel I’m pretty ‘left’, I’m not a gun-grabbing type, I just think the issue isn’t in the statistics, it’s due to other factors. Maybe societal values, individual responsibility, etc., or maybe something as simple as population density being a factor in violent crime rate – and with bigger cities, we’re more prone to that. I’m not sure, but I don’t think it’s a issue where the statistics are way off base – our per capita homicide rate seems considerably higher than those ‘semisocialist European countries’.
Interestingly, the paper in Eric’s response shows a considerably higher rate per 100K in Sweden than the one I found. I’ll try to dig into that, but my guess is it includes suicides or non-gun homicides. Another search just gave me a different number: 0.41 per 100K – this one was found here:
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list
You know LC, I think you’re right. Our violent crime problem is very complex and can probably be convincingly explained in a number of different ways, depending on what sort of audience one is trying to convince.
For instance, if you eliminate a particular demographic group our rates of violent crime fall back into line with other developed nations.
Now, I think that that can probably be explained by several cultural/political variables. But most of the time when anyone so much as brings it up as a factor to discuss, this important variable is almost immediately dismissed as “racism”.
Which is not to say that that particular argument doesn’t hold a certain appeal to racists, but rather I think there is a great deal of intellectual cowardice in how we approach what is within the bounds of acceptable discussion.
Your last paragraph should be framed, if not tattooed on certain politicians’ foreheads.
It’s damn near impossible to solve a problem no one has the cojones to discuss.
TOW, we should also point out that something like half of gun deaths in the US are suicides, while most of the rest are gang and/or drug related.
The linked author also apparently ignores the deaths regularly reported on this blog in the “feel good” posts. Either that or she thinks it’s bad to shoot an armed home invader.
As soon as she said “CNN”, she lost ALL credibility, past, present, and future.
Even if the CNN stats are right, more Americans die in car wrecks per 24 hour period than from guns (101 vs 80). Where’s the outrage? And btw, the Constitution doesn’t guarantee my right to a car…
My favorite response to all these gun control “experts” is this study published by Harvard, one of those liberal egghead schools that created a commie like King Barry:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
Secondly, I’ll take a stab that Ms Yale has been hiding behind a lectern for most of her life and not experienced real life or life with us “common folk” though she can spew to the masses of students her ideals for the world.
It would be great if no one ever needed a gun, if the whole world became a peaceful place like in star trek where everyone got along and improved themselves, no money was needed, etc. But only people who live in that special place who think the world is a wonderful place and no one ever does anything wrong are living in fantasyland.
Somebody is trying to avoid liability on the part of the drug companies and the prescribing physicians to monitor their patients.
Drugs that are used to treat mental illness can and do sometimes cause episodes of deeply bad craziness.
There is a hole in the news reporting about these violent incidents by mentally ill people that might explain a lot. Unreported facts perturb our ability to address problems.
Holders FBI admits that background checks won’t stop criminal from getting guns. And criminal gangs are responsible for 50-90% of all violent crime in the US.
” Typically firearms are acquired through illegal purchases; straw purchases via surrogates or middle-men, and thefts from individuals, vehicles, residences and commercial establishments. Gang members also target military and law enforcement officials, facilities, and vehicles to obtain weapons, ammunition, body armor, police gear, badges, uniforms, and official identification.”
Like the select fire M-4 stolen from an ATF vehicle in Milwaukee a couple years ago.
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/2011-national-gang-threat-assessment
Law abiding citizens are a lot easier targets than gang-bangers though.
Statics and studies are just tools the left use to justify gun control.
The 2 nd amendment says I get to have a weapon to defend myself. Period.
No studies needed. Insane people shouldn’t even have forks, let alone guns.
Bad guys and the insane don’t follow laws, so we arm good people to keep the peace. This way more bad guys die and make us feel good about it. Works for me.
So comparing us to Europe …. Who cares!