Wednesday, May 28, 2014
Competing mental health bills set up partisan showdown
Mental health is again a topic of debate after the UCSB shooting. The debate is largely a partisan one, with Republicans like Representative Tim Murphy advocating for "committing the severely mentally ill deemed in need of treatments to hospitals." Democrats, on the other hand, like Ron Barber believe that increasing access to mental health help is the better path. After the recent shooting, many are pointing fingers at the government, citing that Elliot Rodger's murderous rampage is a result of legislative failure. A surge of new gun control bills and mental health reform took place after the Sandy Hook shooting but they were never put in place. Senator Dianne Feinstein states "'Shame on us for allowing this to continue'" and I agree. A person like Elliot Rodger should have never been allowed to purchase a firearm in the first place. In this case, I don't think mental health reform would have prevented the shooting but stronger gun control laws would have.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
While I do believe that mental health plays an important role in most mass shootings, I don't think either of these bills will prove to be successful. In addition, I think that in order to truly prevent more mass killings like the ones in Newtown and Santa Barbara, stricter gun control laws are a necessity. However, I don't see that happening any time soon either. In order to stop these unnecessary murders we as a society need to make changes and hopefully congress will begin to realize that problems like these aren't just going to go away.
ReplyDeleteOur mental health system needs to be reformed—that is the underlying cause of these mass shootings. A large portion of these shootings are the result of people who have severe emotional and psychological issues. Let’s get to the root of the problem. After all, Rodgers killed as many people with a knife as he did with a gun. Thus, gun control would not have prevented this mass killing. Additionally, many of these mass shootings occur in no-gun zones. Gun control will take guns away from law-abiding citizens who pose no danger (and would likely, in fact, be willing and able to help protect their peers), not from the people who commit these atrocities. Therefore, gun control would not help. Moreover, the Constitution bars the infringement of the right to bear arms, so any gun control efforts would be unconstitutional (a point that is more important than the preceding points).
ReplyDeleteBoth mental health and the accessibility of guns play a part in mass shootings. Just putting more restrictions on mental health is not going to do much. Elliot Rodger killed three people with a gun, and three people with a knife. How are we going to stop stabbings? Are we going to provide background checks at Pottery Barn when someone wants to purchase a new set of knives? We can't do that. But what we can do is make it harder to get a gun. These "law-abiding citizens" shouldn't have a problem getting a gun if they meet the requirements for one.
ReplyDeleteWe need to improve our mental health care system. Mental health is just as important as physical health, yet it seems like some would rather just ignore the problems. As Olivia said, a man like Elliot Rodgers should have never been allowed to purchase a firearm, as he had a history of mental illness. It is too easy to buy a gun in America. I am not trying to say we should infringe on the right to bear arms, but I am saying we use some common sense and implement much more rigorous background checks.
ReplyDeleteI'm a big advocate for stronger gun control laws as well as better mental health care. However, there are many things that need to change in order to really stop mass shootings. Reducing the stigma of mental health; revamping the mental health system, which means hiring more and paying more to psychologists and psychiatrists more; not making mass killers famous; in this case, stop objectifying women; keep better track of guns in the black market, etc, etc. There is a long, vague road a head to try and stop gub violence and mass killings.
ReplyDeleteI am all for stronger gun control laws. Too many people die at the hands of firearms every year. While this can not be completely stopped, it can be reduced. Mental health should be checked when someone purchases a firearm. If they have some type of mental health disorder, they should not be allowed to purchase one. It's especially sad to see that congress has made this a partisan issue. It just shows they are more concerned with beating the opposite party rather than national security
ReplyDeleteI agree that we need stronger gun control laws. There should be more restrictions put in place to make it harder for people like Elliot Rodgers to get a gun. In terms of mental heathcare, I also agree that we need to improve the system, but it I feel it is unlikely. Mental health is something that always seems to be looked over. I've found that it's a thing people don't know how to deal with, therefore, they just leave it as is.
ReplyDeleteA combination of both plans should be implemented: Access to mental healthcare and there also needs to be a more aggressive approach to getting these people to treatment. Gun control is not the answer, reformed healthcare is.
ReplyDeleteI think we need both more gun restrictions and mental health care reform. We need both, but I feel like restrictions on who can buy guns is a more pressing issue. It is harder to determine that someone is mentally unstable than to prevent them to get a gun. As Andrew points out, people should have the right to bear arms, but we need to make it much harder to obtain this right. As for mental health, not only do we need reform on the government level, but we as citizens need to be more aware of our surroundings. If people payed attention to Elliot they would have seen that he posted a YouTube video talking about how he was planning on an attack.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Emily on the thinking that we need both gun restrictions and mental health care reform, but I think mental health is the issue that should be addressed more. It is very hard to keep guns from a person in this country. Even if a person is denied a gun, they can still legally use a family member's gun or illegally get one. With so many people having guns, it makes more sense to deal with the root cause, mental health. if people are encouraged and have the option to get help, we can help people who are potential dangers to society.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jade here. I am for gun restriction, however, we don't blame the bomb in a bombing, we blame the bomber. The same should go for guns. Everyone blames the guns but not the mental instability of the gunner. If we can work to make mental health a bigger priority, then I think we will start to see results.
ReplyDeleteLogically speaking two is better than one. Both areas of interest need reform. If we continue to have keep being oblivious to mental illness, we won't be able to prevent deaths. Mental illnesses are very real and need to be treated. The stigma around them can't survive if you look at the events happening. But, the same goes for being oblivious to lacking gun control: we need reform. While the Constitution bars firearm restriction, the Constitution can and should be amended. Just because a law was doesn't mean it should always be. I doubt the founding fathers had much experience with mass shootings or mental illness when that amendment was written, and I'm sure they'd reconsider reform now with the current situation.
ReplyDelete