How not to stop a massacre
In the real world, we can't stop massacres without limiting gun access
Topics: Newtown, Sandy Hook, Charles Krauthammer, Gun Control, Mental health, miami, Wayne LaPierre, NRA, News, Politics News
Since the Newtown massacre, conservatives have expressed a great deal of concern about mental health. A cynic might say the average Republican congressman would rather spew platitudes about mental health, or the media culture (or virtually anything else) than talk about guns. Nonetheless, mental health’s emergence as a national issue is potentially a welcome development.
“Let’s be serious” Charles Krauthammer, pundit and former practicing psychiatrist, wrote recently in the Washington Post:
Monsters shall always be with us, but in earlier days they did not roam free. As a psychiatrist in Massachusetts in the 1970s, I committed people — often right out of the emergency room — as a danger to themselves or to others. I never did so lightly, but I labored under none of the crushing bureaucratic and legal constraints that make involuntary commitment infinitely more difficult today.
Why do you think we have so many homeless? Destitution? Poverty has declined since the 1950s. The majority of those sleeping on grates are mentally ill. In the name of civil liberties, we let them die with their rights on.
A tiny percentage of the mentally ill become mass killers. Just about everyone around Tucson shooter Jared Loughner sensed he was mentally ill and dangerous. But in effect, he had to kill before he could be put away — and (forcibly) treated.
Random mass killings were three times more common in the 2000s than in the 1980s, when gun laws were actually weaker. Yet a 2011 University of California at Berkeley study found that states with strong civil-commitment laws have about a one-third lower homicide rate.
The debate about involuntary commitment is a small corner of the mental health debate, and it doesn’t fit comfortably into the left/right boxes of our current politics. Still Krauthammer tries to squeeze it in by discussing institutionalization solely in terms of personal liberty. If he really wanted to be “serious” he would have mentioned that better mental health policies, whether that means institutionalizing people or treatment for the far greater number of less impaired patients, will cost taxpayers money. As far as I can tell, the appetite among national Republicans to raise taxes for mental health programs is zero.
Continue Reading CloseAlex Halperin is news editor at Salon. You can follow him on Twitter @alexhalperin. More Alex Halperin.





Comments
24 Comments