Showing posts with label mental illness and guns. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mental illness and guns. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 28, 2014

Faulty Thinking Linking Mass Shootings, Mental Illness, and Liberal Partisan Politics

Better funding of background checks so as to provide data to the NICS data base help prevent the dangerously mentally ill from obtaining legal guns from  FFL licensed sources.  We still have the problem of the dangerously mentally ill obtaining legal guns through other means, and of course, we have way too many illegal guns available in our society as well.

But when we have the radical right wing nuttery trying to equate partisan  political affiliation with mental illness, and/or fraudulently and factually inaccurately trying to categorize all mass shootings as having a mental illness causation, we need to object.  We must push back against this faulty thinking, this profoundly flawed analysis, and this crackpot right wing belief.

We must push back because what this really represents, above and beyond attempting simply to disparage the opposition by the right, is that this claim attempts to redefine gun control arguments and focus.  We see some acquiescence to this change of focus by Sen. Blumenthal, in his appearance on Face the Nation, this past Sunday (CBS).



So for example, the excellent article in the Examiner debunked a widely circulated belief on the right, one that occurs across the right wing echo chamber/bubble, that mass shootings are by registered democrats, or at the very least, "lefty leaners".

The idea that recent mass shooters are mostly registered Democrats is a myth

Based on the assertions of Roger Hedgecock a right-wing radio show host, the meme that the five worst recent mass shootings were committed by registered Democrats is making its way through e-mail chains and social media. Hedgecock asserts, without providing any evidence or sources, that the Ft. Hood shooter, the Virginia Tech shooter, the Aurora Theater shooter and Adam Lanza of Sandy Hook infamy were all “registered Democrats”. He acknowledges that Klebold and Harris (the Columbine Colorado shooters) were too young to be registered voters but asserts, again without providing any evidence, that Harris and Klebold’s parents were progressives or liberal Democrats.
In another forum, the radical righties insisted that, ok, so this author debunked the last five mass shooters --- but those OTHER shootings were all by lefties! No. Wrong. Factually false.

1. Elliot Rodgers the most recent mass shooter was proclaimed a 'lefty' because he subscribed to the youtube feed from the Young Turks. THAT does not define someone as a lefty; I follow Fox News on Facebook, it doesn't make me a right wing nut. What does appear to show a larger and more valid claim to political orientation and affiliation however is the links to the ultra-conservative male-dominionist men's rights movement expressed in his videos and manifesto, and supported apparently by his reported internet history.

2. Another example claimed -- that James Holmes was a member of Occupy San Diego. That is also factually false. At no time was Holmes involved in any way with Occupy San Diego, nor so far as I can find, did he have any political opinion. He appears to have been apolitical. We don't know definitively yet if Holmes was mentally ill, or if he was, that mental illness had any causational role in his actions. In contrast, we know that Jared Loughner suffered from severe schizophrenia, but that appears to be the exception to the rule, not typical of mass shooters.

3. Claims that Karl Pierson was a 'lefty' also don't hold up well to scrutiny. The basis for that claim appears to be that he was an advocate for Keynesian economics, and that one student at his school variously claimed he was a communist or a socialist. What is not at all clear is if the student who made those claims even knew Pierson, much less knew him well. There are Keynsian economists and advocates or proponents across the political spectrum; being a Keynsian is not even remotely the same thing as being a 'commie' or a 'socialist'. There appears to be zero factual basis for the claim that Pierson was a socialist, 'commie' or in any other way a 'lefty'. What is clear from the way those words lefty and commie and marxist are used on the right, however, is that most of those who use those terms casually and interchangeably have no clue what the terms mean. Rather they lob them like bad-word grenades to name-call people with whom they disagree, without regard to actual definitions.

4. Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook shooter has been incorrectly identified over and over on the right as a 'lefty' and a registered Democrat. He was not a lefty, and not a registered voter. If he was mentally ill, we have no diagnosis of it sufficiently chronologically proximate to the shooting, nor do we know if his mental health had any direct causation on his actions. What we do know is that he seemed to share his mother's ultra-conservative views, and that she was a right wing prepper crackpot, of the variety that believes the rubbish promoted by the likes of Glenn Beck.

5. Jared Loughner -- yup, he was severely mentally ill, and yup, that had a direct causational role in his mass shooting. But no, he was not a lefty, and to refute some of the claims made on the right, he was never a volunteer working for Gabby Giffords. What we do know is that he had some vague left-leaning political notions while he was still sane, but that as he became increasingly erratic and his mental illness worsened, he began to visit extremist conservative crackpot web sites, and the ideas from those right wing websites were repeated in communication to Giffords and the Gifford campaign, and that he appears to have targeted Giffords for rejecting those ideas (or at least, not supporting them).

Some mass shootings ARE political in nature, but those are NOT also mental illness caused attacks. Those mass shootings have been, consistently, by radical right wingers.

From the same article:
Interestingly, Hedgecock and those on the far right have conveniently overlooked a number of cases where ideology is clearly right-wing. The acts below are instances of right-wing violence that are unequivocally committed by people who are openly hostile to liberalism. While this does not mean these killers are Republicans, it is quite clear that they are RIGHT-WINGERS and that they have far more in common with Mr. Hedgecock, Alex Jones and the other gun-toting conspiracy nuts on the right than with any evils associated with the Democratic Party or liberalism. In addition, to the list below is the obvious case of Timothy McVeigh, who I have not included because his crime was not committed with firearms. It was however, committed by a right-winger and the carnage was on a massive scale.

For example, on July 18,84 James Oliver Huberty, who told his wife he hated “children, Mexicans and the United States” opened fire inside the McDonald’s Restaurant in San Ysidro, CA using a Browning P-35 Hi-Power 9mm pistol, Winchester 1200 pump-action 12-gauge shotgun, and an Israeli Military Industries 9mm Carbine (Uzi) – all legally acquired. He killed 21 and injured 19 before he was shot dead by police.

Sunday, April 20, 2014

Pennsylvania Man Arrested at JFK Airport with Gun - He Didn't Forget He Had It

Bonehead busted with loaded gun at JFK checkpoint

New York Post

There’s still one man in America who doesn’t know that you can’t bring weapons onto airplanes.
A knucklehead from Pennsylvania found out the hard way that guns and air travel don’t mix when he walked up to a security checkpoint at JFK Wednesday and plunked a pistol down into the X-ray scanner tray as if it were his keys or wallet.
Shocked TSA agents’ jaws dropped when they saw Richard Forti, 55, casually flash the .32-caliber handgun.
He was immediately seized by Port Authority cops, who found another weapon on him — a pair of “cat eye” brass knuckles, which have two metal spikes on the top that look like cat ears.

Sunday, December 29, 2013

When the Right to Bear Arms Includes the Mentally Ill


Mark Russo

The New York Times

Last April, workers at Middlesex Hospital in Connecticut called the police to report that a psychiatric patient named Mark Russo had threatened to shoot his mother if officers tried to take the 18 rifles and shotguns he kept at her house. Mr. Russo, who was off his medication for paranoid schizophrenia, also talked about the recent elementary school massacre in Newtown and told a nurse that he “could take a chair and kill you or bash your head in between the eyes,” court records show.

The police seized the firearms, as well as seven high-capacity magazines, but Mr. Russo, 55, was eventually allowed to return to the trailer in Middletown where he lives alone. In an interview there recently, he denied that he had schizophrenia but said he was taking his medication now — though only “the smallest dose,” because he is forced to. His hospitalization, he explained, stemmed from a misunderstanding: Seeking a message from God on whether to dissociate himself from his family, he had stabbed a basketball and waited for it to reinflate itself. When it did, he told relatives they would not be seeing him again, prompting them to call the police.

As for his guns, Mr. Russo is scheduled to get them back in the spring, as mandated by Connecticut law.
“I don’t think they ever should have been taken out of my house,” he said. “I plan to get all my guns and ammo and knives back in April.”
The Russo case highlights a central, unresolved issue in the debate over balancing public safety and the Second Amendment right to bear arms: just how powerless law enforcement can be when it comes to keeping firearms out of the hands of people who are mentally ill.
Connecticut’s law giving the police broad leeway to seize and hold guns for up to a year is actually relatively strict. Most states simply adhere to the federal standard, banning gun possession only after someone is involuntarily committed to a psychiatric facility or designated as mentally ill or incompetent after a court proceeding or other formal legal process. Relatively few with mental health issues, even serious ones, reach this point.