Unfortunately this piece has understandable relevance by anyone who periodically has vague awareness of reoccurring current events. With this latest mass murder characterizing more of a hate crime laced with self-loathing than its initial label as ISIS brand terrorism comes the onslaught of prevention and blame speculation. With these events, the loudest screaming force is that of gun control. The carousel of gun control verbiage with no action so repetitive it is difficult to engage in conversation that doesn’t seem pointless and tedious.
The country has a notion that to “do something” means to aggressively stamp out any threat when the prompting of the threat is more insidious. While I can support gun control laws that make sense: closing loop holes and creating laws with the capacity for reasonable and effective enforcement, I can’t help but think that this misses the point of the issue of why we are seeing such a large and escalating amount of this type of aggression.
Mental health feeds into the discombobulated notions of what needs to happen with gun control, our general policies, and approach to mental health treatment. The issue for me is the continued blanket statement that anyone facing mental illness, whether significant enough to merit previous treatment or just a vague malaise following an individual, is inherently a threat, regardless of diagnosis.
Mental health struggles are often in the process of overt stigmatization among the discussion of gun control laws and random, grotesque murders. Inherently any struggles of the mind are meant to be feared, not understood. As an extreme example of mental illness that occasionally experiences attention in instances of mass aggression is Schizophrenia or other related psychotic disorders. Their very label is dangerous, and all freedoms for the individual possessing this life path should be restricted, but other than media talking points, how do we as a society determine an individual’s threat?
If one were to be hospitalized at some point, surely that is concrete enough to leave bureaucrats and politicians the ability to detail lengthy policies and restrictions? In some cases I can agree, but hospitalization does not guarantee continued instability despite the unease one might feel with an individual’s symptoms. Sometimes, and not uncommonly, hospitalization only indicates that an individual has sufficient health insurance and the capacity to navigate the system to receive help. Additionally, hospitalization can just as easily indicate evidence the individual is surrounded by a healthy and loving support system.
To humanize this issue I give the instance of Elyn Saks, a brilliant woman I would be honored to meet in person. Having the diagnosis of Schizophrenia and the bravery to chronicle her experiences in her autobiography entitled The Center Cannot Hold, in which she details her extraordinary accomplishments despite her ongoing struggles. She is the antithesis of a danger to society, so do we deny her the capability to own a firearm because she had the wherewithal and tenacity to ask for and receive help?
I suppose some might say that she is the exception, but I can point to an array of mental health professionals, including myself, who have worked with throngs of exceptions. A friend who is a psychiatrist working specifically with those suffering from psychotic disorders, both in- and outpatient discussed with me some time ago the larger prevalence of such issues than one would expect in the population at large. She described the intense stigma preventing people from seeking help even if it would make their lives easier. As a specialist in her field she described the vast majority of those meeting the diagnostic criteria of illnesses like Schizophrenia having the capacity to function quite well in society, their struggles sometimes unbeknownst to their closest loved ones. Further complicating the issue is there is no true way to document such disorders’ prevalence. Should we deprive all those suffering from issues like psychotic disorders of a constitutional right out of fear and lack of understanding?
With no established causality for such destructive and horrendous incidents as mass violence, there is the highest correlation represented in studies and academic articles, namely, societal exclusion and poverty. Both issues become the undercurrent whenever the media delves into the life and situation of the offending party. It’s always interesting that such commonalities among all of these individuals are dismissed in any coherent discussion of the issue or problem. I always assumed because dwelling on such common conflicts these people face is a fisherman’s bait nightmare, regardless if the act is one of the increasingly rampant massacres, gang related violence, or adolescent bullying.
Perhaps it isn’t the laws and access to tools of destruction that is the problem. Perhaps our reluctance as individuals to embrace those who are different with genuine inclusiveness prompts such profound aggression. Perhaps it isn’t for the government to fix, although I truly believe in its role to provide for citizens. Maybe, just maybe, the power to prevent future mass violence with any perpetrator, ISIS inspired terrorist or other, is to see ourselves as a united community with the power as individuals to stand strong by our commonalities far exceeding our differences.
In addition to writing short stories and essays, I maintain a blog of my parenting trials and tribulations. Additionally, you can take a gander at my Facebook parenting information and social support page.