E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe mass murder of 20 children and six adults Friday in Newtown, Conn., has provoked yet another round of recrimination, finger pointing and breast-beating. Was the shooter mentally deranged? If there was more gun control, would this have happened? Did violent video games play any role? What we fervently want as we continue to reel from a story whose misery seems to know no bounds is to find a clear cause - a reason why this happened - so that we can fix it.
We hope to see something in all the stories, analyses, commentaries, Facebook postings and Twitter speculation that gives us the reason behind what happened and thus a guarantee that if we understand and act on it then no 6 year old or her parent need to worry ever again what might happen at their school. We hope that no college, hospital or mall will ever again have a reason to practice drills for "shooters" and no play or movie-goer grow anxious over who has snuck into the theater with evil intent.
But, there is no simple answer. We have ourselves to blame for where we find ourselves in terms of mass shootings. Our culture is too far down the road of tolerating and even extolling violence. We do so in our popular entertainment, we permit the mass marketing of violence to young kids, and we thrill to it in too many of our sports. A lot of people make a lot of money selling violence. I doubt that will change.
Nor will the easy availability of guns. We have been well aware of the cost of easily obtained high-powered guns for a long time. Even if we move toward tighter gun control laws and seek to reduce access to automatic weapons and ammo, which I favor, we have so many guns in circulation that these efforts are too little, too late. Will deaths fall if killers are not armed as if for combat with automatic weapons and full body armor? Yes. But, will ready access to automated weapons, guns and this kind of equipment disappear any time soon in America? I am afraid not.
So what are we left with as a way to construct a response to Newtown and all the Newtowns before it? I think we need to rethink how we think about violence in the situation in which we find ourselves — armed to the teeth in a very violent society that is nervous and full of fear. The only way to reduce risk in such a tinderbox is to give up a bit of liberty.
First, make the discussion of violence a public health priority. Ask health care workers to talk about the threat of violence in all its forms as a huge public health problem — from suicide to domestic abuse to mass murder. Insist that doctors and nurses talk about guns and weapons with their patients noting their risks and the need for safety handling and storage when they are present.
Ditch efforts, such as Florida’s, to prohibit these discussions. Take the stigma out of talking about the possibility that someone you know will may be prone to violence and offer clear directions about what to do about that. Let prying in the name of health into what is now deemed private be the accepted norm.
Second, fix the broken mental health system. Not all who are violent are mentally ill. And mental illness is not always a reason not to hold someone responsible for their actions. Still, no one with a kid who has a mental health problem, and I mean no one, has ready access to competent mental health assistance. Ask parents who have a kid with anorexia, compulsions, a personality disorder or schizophrenia how easy it is to get services and you will quickly get an unhappy earful.
If you have a heart attack in any American town or city you can expect an ambulance within minutes. If you or someone you knows has a mental breakdown or ongoing drug abuse why cant we expect the same rapid response and treatment capability? We also need more incentives for doctors, nurses and social workers to specialize in mental health. The nation needs fewer dermatologists and allergists and a lot more psychiatrists and psychologists.
Third, start to screen kids in school — all schools -- for signs of problems involving violence be it bullying, domestic abuse or social isolation. We screen kids for hearing and vision problems but looking for early signs of mental illness is somehow off-limits. A kid can be labeled as at risk of diabetes but not suicide or violence. A bit of screening and some early counseling for those found to be at risk of violence is not going to lead to the thought police controlling the next generation of Americans.
As much as we want it there is no quick fix for Aurora, Columbine, Newtown, Virginia Tech, West Nickel Mines and the scores of other school, mall and public building massacres America has seen over the past two decades. Given where we find ourselves, the fix means giving up a smidgeon of liberty to better protect safety. It means seeing violence as a public health problem that is just as real as swine flu or obesity. It means committing to a hard societal slog from a very bad place to something a bit better.
.
Arthur Caplan, Ph.D., is the head of the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU Langone Medical Center.
Related stories:
Asperger's not an explanation for Lanza's killing spree
Reopen Sandy Hook? Lessons from other shooting sites
Nervous parents send kids back to school
After school massacre, parents' divide deepens on gun control
Leave a Comment:
Fine with me. Call gun obsession, antigovernment paranoia, and NRA membership a mental illness and we're done. Find those with all three and lock them up forever.
People who are so afraid of guns that they condemn every gun owner and constantly insult them should be institutionalized.
You have the NRA to thank for that. The NRA management opposes all gun control, no matter how reasonable-sounding. NRA members, on the other hand, are as much for many types of reasonable gun control and gun tracking as the rest of the population.
Think about this..Howard Dean is a member of the NRA - he was once front-runner for the Democratic nomination for being President in 2004.
However, until the NRA membership holds the NRA management responsible and forces management to lobby for the beliefs of the membership, they are going to continue getting a bad rap with liberals in general. I would suggest that this is not entirely unfair.
The only way to reduce risk in such a tinderbox is to give up a bit of liberty.
He who is foolish enough to give up a bit of liberty for some safety will have neither!
In order to live in a community, we always give up liberty. That is part of being a community. What you have said makes for a nice saying, but unfortunately, it is too simplistic in the complex world we find ourselves in.
Does one have to give up liberty to live within a community? I think not! Where does this notion come from? Did hunter gatherers create governments and laws so that they could live together? No! And their societies were far more equal and free than ours are.
This is a thoughtful, rational approach to an ongoing problem.
Unfortunately, as such it will be immediately dismissed and attacked by the irrational and thoughtless occupying each fringe.
Over a period of many years, beginning with World War One, our government has systematically denied American citizens proper mental health care. It is in the interest of our government to keep from spending the money on helping people with mental illness, so they will have money to spend on war and another yacht for every Congressman.
People insist that "autism" is not a mental illness. It is the definition of mental illness, whereas schizophrenia, bi-polarism, depression are mental illness that can possibly be "cured" with medication. We spend a fortune attempting to educate those with "special needs" and we spend nothing to attend to those who excel or can be helped with medication.
Most shooters we've had have been off the charts brilliant. If we had paid a tenth of the attention we pay to the severely autistic that can never be helped to those who are off the scales in the opposite direction, we might have avoided all of this.
backtobasics I would disagree with your comment. The US government spends a LOT of money on people with mental illness. The No Child Left Behind throws crazy amounts of money at children with mental health issues. They have special SPED teachers, a lot of the SPED children have adult Aides that thier whole job is to follow one child around school all day and help them interact with thier peers. I have no actual numbers, but my wife is a SPED teacher and I would bet the school district spend 2 to 3 times as much money on each SPED kid as they do on the average student.
Students with mental health disorders like bipolar and major depression definitely do not get extra help in school.
allislost: Not all kids in special education have mental health issues. Many just need extra academic support. Yes, some have mental health issues also. I would also like to point out that the money spent on SPED teachers is NOT the same as funding mental health. SPED teachers are there to provide academic support to students with special needs. SPED teachers receive extra training on how to deal with special needs children. However, SPED teachers that actually work with children with mental illness are NOT able to diagnose or even actually treat mental illness - they provide much needed support, but they are not diagnosing or treating. You can provide all the SPED teachers you want, but without proper diagnosis and full treatment (which may or may not include medications), you aren't addressing mental illness properly.
btw, the aides that follow the students around also are NOT able to diagnose or fully treat a child with mental illness. They are one component of providing treatment to the child (just like a SPED teacher is in some cases) - but they are not actually diagnosing the child, nor are they, in and of themselves, full treatment.
Should we also include all of the sociopaths like unscrupulous business people, bankers and all of the others that feel it is OK to do wrong as long as it benefits them or their friends as a public health issue?
Our liberties not focusing on any specific amendment prevent us from having atrocities such as occurred in Nazi Germany. During the communist scare in the U.S. this man would be writing his column from a federal prison. You cannot give up liberty and receive security. This is the why this country was founded. I respect his thoughts however claiming they are from his professional opinion and not politically charged is something straight from the USSR and Hitler handbook. We need to secure our schools and figure out why these young men are doing such horrible things. We cannot and will not regulate human stupidity which is the root cause of our problems. Unfortunately tragedies do occur and will continue. Yes I have lost love ones from senseless violence. They were children at the time and it was at the hands of a mad man. His name was Adolf Hitler. He promised security and prosperity if we would just let him lead us there and give up a few liberties. I can't say I remember much about the scenario I was to young and was carted the hell out of there thank god. I don't think anyone here wants that agian so lets keep our liberties come together as a nation and solve our problems with a rational and effective solution.
y
I survived the Holocaust. This is baloney, lots of young family members died most were young or old as they couldn't work in the factories. I never thought I would live long enough to see this in the U.S. Liberty prevents atrocities. During the communist scare in this country this man would be writing this from a federal prison. This is based more off of his political opinion then a professional opinion passing this off as fact finding a absurd. It is straight from the propaganda of Stalin and Hitler. Human stupidity and evil cannot be regulated. We must secure our schools until we can find the root cause of this problem. Probably the economy and sense of hopelessness. This is truly a poor political play and I'm disappointed. Perhaps the good doctor should study history instead of public health.
I would have to say that I disagree with just about every single statement that was made in this article.
Add Caplan to the list of people who immediately disqualify themselves from this debate by proving their ignorance about guns. He keeps dropping the "A" word, yet automatic weapons are very difficult to get, very expensive, and totally illegal in all but a few states. No automatic weapons were used in Newtown. No automatic weapons were used in Colorado. No automatic weapons were used in Arizona. No automatic weapons were used at Virginia Tech. Shall I go on?
You'd think someone who wears his Ph.D. on his sleeve (and on his name) would know how to do basic research on a subject, even (or especially) if he were ignorant on it - but then he wouldn't be able to talk about "you-know-whats", just like the people in Harry Potter are afraid to speak the name Voldemort.
There is a major error in this arguement, which can lead us to an errorneous conclusion. That is, just what guns are we talking about? Automatic weapons are already banned and can't be owned by private citizens. Only military and police can posses them legally. These are automatic weapons which means they can shoot an entire magazine with only one trigger pull. The are true assault weapons. The guns that can be owned by citizens are semi-automatic weapons. each shot requires a trigger pull, regardless of the number of bullets in the magazines. Semi-automatic weapons included a large percentage of hunting rifles, handguns and those used for sport, target shooting and yes, the AR 15. So, if automatic weapons are already banned, where do we draw the line? Do we ban some types of semi-automatic weapons and not others? Do we start limiting the number of bullets in a magazine? I don't think micro-managing guns will solve the problem. We must take a broader perspective and look at human nature and what goes in to the making of a mass murderer, regardless of weapon. Concealed handgun license holders and card-carrying members of the NRA, of which I am both aren't the ones committing these crimes. The Bible tells us that the first murder was committed with the jawbone of an ass...so we do ban asses? Now, that's something I could be in favor of!
No! It is too profitable to house criminals in prisons. The more criminals the better.
Also, hair splitting should be illegal.
On another note, any weapon that automatically loads a round after firing a round is an automatic. It automatically loads a round. Duh! We call them semi-automatic now because you can't just hold down the trigger and continue to fire rounds. Non automatic means manual. One loads each individual round before firing.
No, it is not correct to call all modern pistol and rifle designs "automatic." That term is consistently used to refer to the sorts of military weapons that fire multiple bullets very rapidly when the trigger is pulled once and held down. Such weapons are almost impossible for average civilians to own and, as several commenters have already noted, were not used in this or any other recent mass shooting. Use of "automatic" as a meaningless scare word raises suspicions that the speaker actually is hostile to private ownership of all modern guns - and after that, very likely on to the old-fashioned designs, since revolvers also "automatically" turn the chamber so that they fire a bullet with each trigger pull, etc. There is a case to be made for banning certain types of modern semi-automatic weapons, or at least high-capacity clips and magazines, and if there were reason to believe that it would make any difference in the toll of violence, you could probably get many gun owners to support it at this point. However, in a country where nearly half of the homes contain guns, such efforts will not succeed if rural voters believe they are a stalking horse for future measures that would inflict serious social, economic, and even environmental harm.
So since a revolver fires with each pull of the trigger, it too is a "semi-automatic weapon"??? Interesting how one can stretch the meaning of words to suit one's political purpose. Applying this broad definition would leave us with muzzeloaded rifles and shotguns. Not that this would change the violence issue--after all, these are the weapons used to fight the American Revolution, the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, and most of the Civil War, as well as all of the continental wars from the 1720's to the 1850's (including the Napoleonic Wars and the French Revolution). Abe Lincoln was killed with a single shot muzzle loaded derringer.
Firearms are merely a tool. Before firearms there were swords, knives, arrows, lances, clubs, and on and on. Violence is an expression of the will of the wielder, not of the will of the tool used to accomplish the purpose.
Sorry to quibble, mdnorcuss, since yours is not the argument I hope to defeat, but you have missed Caplan's point, I think. Caplan argues that violence is not an expression of the will, but a disease of the mind. (Does he say "not in all cases"? Maybe, but he offers no solution for the remainder). So, none of the shooters from whom Caplan would protect us are responsible for their actions. In his world, these poor mass murderers are the tragic victims of our too-squeamish health care workers. As I read him, medical privacy and self-defense are just figments used to sell guns.
Yep, both of you. And guns are not floating in the air with white (or dark?) wings, shooting themselves off at the targets.
SomeONE is pulling that trigger. And it is that ONE's brain, or emotions, or both, that decided to use the gun. And as you pointed out above. It isn't the gun that is doing the killing. If the gun doesn't exist, some other handy dandy weapon will be found.
The bow has to be pulled for the arrow. The knife has to be hurled by the hand. The poison has to be mixed into the drink.
Are we going to vanquish all of these things?
Violence a disease of the mind? Then the whole human race is insane from its very inception. Give me a break. Without violence, there wouldn't be any humans around now anyway to mess up the planet for all the other animals--we would have starved to death and/or been eaten.
mdnorcuss... if "violence" is not a disease of the mind, then what is it a disease of? Actually, though, I believe you are talking about extremes, and human beings are represented all across a continuum in which the extremes of any behavior are minuscule when compared with the entire facts of human behavior ...
I cannot agree that it is "violence." It is generally an extreme word yet dealing with it appropriately is the challenge. In my opinion, humanity's numbers are increasing exponentially and it's not due to violence as you describe it. Doesn't it seem more due to moderate people who actually use their brains for health improvements and lower death rates... and also older lives with sharp brains?
When you compare the population of Planet Earth now with the numbers of humans who were found to be recorded by the scribes and pharisees of 2,000 years ago, one has to notice that we are plunging into self-extinction by pure numbers within the future millennia to come. The symptoms are definitely in the here and now.
Not by violence, but by turning ourselves into zombies via all the ticky tacky techie toys that increasingly run our lives. Not violence, mdnorcross, but unadulterated human abberations and, dare I say it? inertia?
Let the machines run it all...
Violence is not a disease. It is a necessary facet of survival. It is coded into our genes and finds expression in our ancient midbrains. it cannot be cut out with a knife, nor controlled by "medication." Violence, standing alone, is neither positive nor negative. As one psych professor said to a class many years ago, there are four basic human instincts, feeding, fighting, flight and fornicating. The first three are for individual survival, the fourth for species survival. Or would you prefer we call it aggression? It comes down to the same thing, and controlled aggression is one of the main factors in "success"--just look at any Type A personality to see what I mean.
How about instead of trampling on everybodys liberties a little more, we fix the societal issues that cause the stress and disfunction that leads to violent behaviors?
Point to a time in history without violence, and tell me why you think that this idea is in any way feasible without massively drugging the entire population.
So since there always has been, and always will be violence, your only concern is that it not be committed with guns. You'd be OK if the Newtown students had been pushed out a window. Got it.
This author is incorrect. My family members and I have been able to get mental health help when needed through
our medical insurance and out of our own pocket.
Oh yes, it's available--assuming you can pay for it. Last year I spent $50,000 for mental health care for one of my children. Insurance paid for none of it. I don't know what will happen if the issue comes up again--I am tapped out, still paying off the loans I tok out then.
What business does a physician have counseling his or her patients about safe gun handling practices? Most of the doctors I know, pediatricians in particular, don't even own guns. I would think that the majority of the membership of the AMA is in the same boat, as it was that organization that came up with this zany idea in the first place. According to the AMA, parents with children should not own guns and should be encouraged to get rid of them, or keep them unloaded, locked up, with the ammunition separately stored in a locked container. These are the same as the restrictionsimposed in D.C. by law overturned by the Supreme Court in Heller v. D.C. as unconstitutional.
If any doctor asks me whether I own guns, I'll tell him to mind his own business, and to practice medicine, not politics.
I'm in medical school (I'm a 3rd year on rotations). About half the physicians I know do own guns. A large percentage of medical students I go to school with own a variety of guns. Many of them enjoy target shooting, hunting, and collecting guns. Certainly, I don't know the majority of doctors in this country. A 2000 survey of physicians (which is probably outdated) found that 36% of male physicians own guns, and 17% of female physicians own guns (in the general population 46% of males own guns and 22% of females own guns).
The physicians I know that actually do ask a patient if they own guns (and it's the minority of physicians that do this - expect in psychiatry, in that field, it's the majority that ask) follow up with just giving them the NRA pamphlet on gun safety (which is the pamphlet they are recommended to give on it), unless they are psych docs - then they give the pamphlet and they delve further into does owing the gun put anyone, including the patient, at an increased risk of injury or death. Pediatricians do tend to advise that the gun be secured, unloaded - mainly because kids are notorious for getting into things they shouldn't be getting into, and many shooting deaths of children are accidental and at the hands of a child.
And on the same news page is this story:
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/50253098/ns/technology_and_science-science/#.UNJs3cWeZ48
It seems that we are genetically predisposed to violence. Which of course makes sense if you want your species to survive.
To all the dissemblers who insist on casting this debate in terms that support their worldview, buy a clue. In all the ranting that has taken place after every tragedy of this kind a consistent theme has emerged. Control “all the others” but not “me.” The main issue we face in this debate is a public health issue and a mental health crisis. Proven criminals are not the ones slaughtering the innocent in mass displays of weapons fire. It is the mentally unhinged that are creating these episodes of mass terror. There certainly is an epidemic of gun violence in our nation, but again it is a small minority responsible. And again it is individuals acting out in anti-social ways. The nasty little truth in our nation is that mental health issues are viewed as personal failings by our culture. That having a mental issue is viewed by a majority in our society as moral weakness. People choose to remain ignorant of such issues in deliberate attempts to pretend away a problem that has been with humanity since the beginning of society. People so afraid of what others may think if the word got out that someone in their family is seeking mental health assistance. That ignorant others in their community will brand them as prone to the same scourge, because “we all know the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.” It’s time that we all grow up a bit more and accept that as the body occasionally suffers from maladies so does the brain. That personality disorders are not moral weakness to be spurned or disdained. It’s time we all take a little more care for the others around us who seem a little off, instead of turning our backs on them and pretending they aren't there. Rights belong only to those responsible for their actions who willingly accept that responsibility. Those who shirk responsibilities have no claim to the rights those responsibilities confer.
Very good post. Warren... and you set me thinking. I had an option cross my mind I figured would horrify most folks (Oh, it is clean, just a bit novel ... but I think I might present it anyway).
:) I just have to write it.
Thank you for your comments... they are right on.
The problem with your world view Warren is that it does not comport with reality. What is reality is that mass murders by deranged killers are an outlier in the great scheme of things. Sure there is lots of killing, mostly by young males between the ages of 16 and 25, if the FBI statistics are to be believed. But these people are sane by any legal definition you care to apply. They are not psychotic, not schizophrenic. They know exactly what they are doing when the do it--ther crimes are willful and knowing. Perfectly sane people do perfectly insane things. Like Rwanda. Like Boznia/Croatia. Like Zimbabwe, the Congo, Mexico, Bazil, South Africa. How many women and children have been slaughtered by bombers in Pakistan and Afganistan for no reason other than religious intolerance?Or Iraq for that matter. Is an armed robber knocking over the liquor store mentally disabled and in need of psychiatric care? Or just a spoiled kid who wants someting for nothing?
Where do we find "hate" and "violence". The newspaper - front page, editorial page, sports page. People are attacked with bullying techniques that attack the person. The news shows - same thing. Hate, hate, hate some person. Hollywood - movies depend on sex and violence. Usually sex includes violence. California is the source of 90% of this hate and violence. Shutdown the California entertainment industry. Sports, Espn - do you want to hear a moron preaching hate against another person - watch ESPN. They have people every hour telling you who to hate! Then ask Obama. He blames everything on the Republicans. Obama is not responsible for anything that his administration does. He would be the best person to hate. He is clearly a moron.
Quote from the movie "Serenity"
"I aim to mis-behave."