| |
02/09/10
|
|||||||||||
|
May 14,
2007 I'm on record myself as agreeing that it's probably a really bad idea for someone who is a clear and present danger to himself or others to have a loaded gun readily at hand. I suspect that few of you would argue with me on that single point. The problem enters in, however, when we try to codify in some way just who is and who isn't such a danger. In hindsight, many people have talked about the Virginia Tech shooter as being just such an unbalanced person. Cho Seung-Hui, it is said, was a disturbed young man. Some have noted that he was a loner who resisted attempts by others to include him. A few teachers and some classmates have pointed to some of his creative writing assignments as being particularly violent in nature; teachers have said that they urged him to seek counseling. After being accused of stalking a couple of girls on campus, he was ordered by a judge to seek treatment on an outpatient basis. Because he was not actually involuntarily committed, however, none of these things was reportable under current Virginia law. Cho's firearms background check thus came back clean and he was able to purchase the weapons he used to kill 32 people. Under federal law, the purchase should have been prohibited. But a combination of differing state laws and the fact that many states are behind in providing mental health information to the NCIS database make such prohibitions a crap shoot at best. The governor of Virginia says he'll work to close this "loophole" in the gun laws there, but that hasn't stopped some in Congress from proposing even more stringent gun regulation on the federal level (much of which, by the way, has nothing to do with prohibiting firearms for mentally unstable persons and everything to do with curtailing gun rights across the board). It should come as no surprise that I oppose these proposed infringements of our Second Amendment rights, but the issue I feel to be by far the most immediately dangerous has to do with addressing the real case in point with the Virginia Tech shootings: mental instability, and the prohibition of firearms ownership to those who exhibit the symptoms. My concerns are many: Who would be charged to make the judgment that would strip an unalienable right away from an American citizen? What grounds would be sufficient to do so? What about second opinions in such matters? Would the ban on firearms ownership be permanent, or would the right be restored if the person is deemed cured? Would a determination be retroactive, or simply prevent future gun purchases? If the former, would searches and confiscations be a mandated part and parcel of such legislation? Perhaps my single biggest worry concerning such legislation has to do with the criteria for ruling someone ineligible for firearms ownership under a mental disability in the first place. For example, there are those already asking if Cho's violent actions were at least in part the result of antidepressants he might have been taking. There is, after all, a striking list of violent behaviors alleged to be connected with the taking of such medications. In fact, the correlation - particularly in those under the age of 18 - is sufficiently worrisome that the drug manufacturers themselves include warnings to consumers of such possible extreme side effects. To some, it might make a certain amount of sense that we at least temporarily confiscate any firearms from those prescribed such medications. We can see how they react, and then return their guns if we don't see adverse effects. But such side effects are incredibly rare - consider the number of people who take this kind of medication (never mind whether such drugs as Ritalin are over prescribed), and then consider the rarity of attacks such as Cho's. We can clearly see that the statistics are overwhelmingly against such extreme events. Will we consider why the medications are prescribed in the first place? Sure, it's remotely possible that a depressed person could become suicidal, or a person suffering from some imbalance already could conceivably become violent. But oftentimes, these drugs are prescribed for things other than some kind of mental health issue. For example, Paxil is known to alleviate hot flashes in menopausal women. Will we take firearms away from middle-aged housewives just in case? What about those who only take certain medications to deal with a short term problem? I know a woman who recently lost her husband suddenly and who is enduring a difficult grieving process. Who could blame her if she needed a little something to help her through her first weeks and months alone? I know another woman who is undergoing couples counseling that is, at times, emotionally overwhelming. Is that sufficient grounds to search her home to ensure she doesn't own a gun? Many of us are under a great deal of stress these days. With lay-offs and $3 a gallon gas, family pressures and more, will those who go to a mental health clinic to learn to deal with their worries be flagged on a government database somewhere? Whatever your medical or mental health issues might be, and however private you think your health care is, the federal government is going to know these things about you. Many health care institutions are converting all of their medical records into an electronic format; the federal government has been working to establish a national records database for some time, ostensibly to ensure your records are accessible no matter where or under what conditions you might seek treatment. Touted as a safety measure (and the truth is that it would be safer when even emergency physicians can have ready access to a patient's medical history), the reality is that such a database is also a clear privacy threat. Sadly, it threatens even more than that in the current context. It doesn't take much to make the leap - actually, a very short hop - to the idea that the NCIS database could be set up to correlate with a medical records database and spit out the fact that Sally Jones was once treated for postpartum depression, or that Bill Smith needed sleeping pills for a month after his daughter was killed in a car accident. Even worse is the FDA's current threat to regulate supplements and herbs. If you're on record as purchasing chamomile tea, for example (said to be good for stress), or some lavender (a mild sleep and relaxation aid), will that eventually bring negative attention to you, too? In the age of the USA PATRIOT Act where federal authorities seek information even from our home computers via search engine records, could I conceivably and in the near future find myself in trouble for writing a column like this? I did, after all, search for things like "Paxil side effects" and "gun law loopholes." In combination with previous searches such as "impeach Bush" and "9/11 conspiracy" (don't ask), am I already threatened with the loss of some of my civil liberties "for my own safety" - or even more frightening, for your safety? The truth is that all of these signs and symptoms may mean somebody is about to go on a shooting rampage. But far more likely, it means nothing at all. For every woman who suffers from postpartum depression and drowns her children (a grand total of two of whom I'm aware), there are millions who suffer for a couple of months and - with or without medical aid - get through it and past it without lasting harm. For every man or woman who writes tales of extreme violence - Stephen King or Quentin Tarantino, anybody? - there are exceedingly few who live such things anywhere but in their fertile imaginations. For every high school or college student who is termed a "loner" or a "loser" — and didn't we all feel that way at one time or another? - the probability of anything beyond a few tears or some short term depression or resentment is infinitesimally small. I understand that those who are proposing closing this particular "loophole" are trying to protect people, and I appreciate that. But they're going about it the wrong way. Some behaviors are utterly unpredictable. "Psychotic breaks" are called breaks because they're quick and unforeseen. No number of signs, portents, or the closing of loopholes real or imagined can protect us from that kind of thing. Fortunately, such breaks are also exceedingly rare whatever the headlines - or, in fact, the hoplophobes - might lead you to think. The vast majority of people who suffer short term psychological problems of any nature are not a threat to anybody. And those few who are often can't be predicted with certainty. The one sure thing is that the only reliable protection from those rare and dangerous people is the ability for the rest of us to ably defend ourselves should we desire to do so. But if we take that ability away from every man and woman who has ever had trouble sleeping, has been in a bar fight during a misspent youth, or has asked for help during an emotionally difficult time, there's only going to be another terrible slaughter like the one at Virginia Tech. (And please don't get me started on generic "gun free" campuses or businesses, all right?) Do the actions of Cho Seung-Hui show us that there's a real need for gun law reform? Sure, they do. We've got definitive proof yet again that unarmed victims have no option but to cower behind inadequate barricades and hope for the best. If you ask me, those who think that that's an acceptable idea are the clear and present danger to all of the rest of us. And plans to make still more of us victims of one sort or another thanks to sweeping government intrusiveness and authority proves the point more definitively than anything else I could possibly say. As bad as it would be to see sweeping curbs on gun rights with little if any basis in true protection for anyone, it will only get worse if we begin to consider it a matter of course for the government to monitor and control us via massive collections of information. Gun control may be the most immediate application given recent events, but it won't be the only one. It will just be the one that makes the curtailments of freedom that follow all the more certain. Legal
loophole gives mentally ill access to guns Rules
should have barred weapon purchase Va.
governor looks to close loophole in gun sales law Are
meds to blame for Cho's rampage?
Domestic Enemies: The Reconquista is the sequel to Bracken's well received Enemies Foreign and Domestic (though The Reconquista can stand alone, Bracken suggests and I agree that the first book offers an important foundation to the events in the second). The first book was good enough that I was anxious for the sequel; after waiting two years, I'm delighted to say that The Reconquista was worth the wait. (Read the rest here)
Lady Liberty is a pro-freedom activist currently residing in the Midwest. More of her writings and other political and educational information is available on her web site, Lady Liberty's Constitution Clearing House. E-mail Lady Liberty at ladylibrty@ladylibrty.com. Now available:
"Eternal Vigilance: The Best of Lady Liberty 2002-2004" |
Matthew Bracken on Borders, Books, and the Future of Freedom -Interview Movie Review The Astronaut Farmer Complete Archives for Lady Lib | |||||||||
 |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
Domestic
Enemies: The Reconquista by Matthew Bracken