Yes, I hope there is someone with a gun to protect me if needed. However, I hope, more, that there's never anyone with a gun against whom I must be protected. An example of this is a former client’s ex-husband, an ex-Vietnam war sniper who exhibited severe PTSD and engaged in numerous discussions with his VA therapist, saying that he wanted to kill other people, including his ex-wife. He also threatened to kill me!
This man owned 19 guns in his arsenal (several of them assault weapons). His son was convicted of attempted murder after using one, and there was, and is, nothing we could do about it, due to the patient-doctor privilege, which a particular state saw as a lack of evidence.
Also, due to the fact that the two had been divorced for many years, the state also saw no evidence that he wanted to kill his ex-wife.
I can’t help but be concerned about the mentally ill who might own a gun. I represent numerous clients who can’t access mental health care on a regular basis, who have become homeless after going through a crisis that put them through a cycle of being 1) hospitalized or incarcerated, 2) put on medications, 3) stabilized, 4) released into the community, 5) functional for a while (but not getting healthcare), 6) decomposed, 7) homeless, and 8) put through the whole process over again.
No, I don't want to take away your guns. You may be sane. I own a gun and I have hunted. I was trained by the NRA, have served in the military, and have dealt with many situations involving violent people with violent histories. I want a rational discussion that seeks balance with a three-pronged approach of adequate security, rationale gun ownership, gun type oversight, and a comprehensive mental healthcare system.
I don't want to live in a police state, nor in a community where the psychologically challenged have easy access to a gun. The simplistic and shallow people hallmark portraitures and post them as their perceived reflection of truth and reality, which add nothing to the conversation.
The military, my own training, and my experience have taught me this truth: If psychologically disturbed people want to kill you, and want to do it with a gun, they usually will succeed, because the element of surprise trumps the men, women, or teachers with the gun in their holster, desk, or gun cabinet. (But yes, they can minimize the damage.)
The argument that they could do it just as easily with a car, knife, bomb, etc. is almost meritless. My training has also taught me that if those are their choices, they will be more likely to fail than if they use a gun. That is why most of us don't hunt with bombs, cars, knives, or poison. A gun is readily available, easy to use, quick, and efficiently lethal. That's why most psychopaths, the suicidal, the criminal, the mentally unstable, and the passionately enraged also hunt/kill with a gun. If a deranged, mentally ill, enraged person runs to his/her closet to pick something with which to kill you, he/she will probably pick the gun over a bomb, a knife, a bat, or some rat poisoning. That is the reality, people. If a few lives are saved every year because persons with a known proclivity to violence, or a troubled mental health history, are unable to purchase or obtain a gun (or because a person with a mental health challenge is able to access mental health care), that is a worthy goal, despite the fact that others would still die in gun-related violence.
No perfection on this issue can be achieved, because any such solution that tries to appease the extremes of either side would invariably be unduly ineffective, too intrusive, too expensive, or utterly tyrannical.
Loren M. Lambert © December 29, 2012
This man owned 19 guns in his arsenal (several of them assault weapons). His son was convicted of attempted murder after using one, and there was, and is, nothing we could do about it, due to the patient-doctor privilege, which a particular state saw as a lack of evidence.
Also, due to the fact that the two had been divorced for many years, the state also saw no evidence that he wanted to kill his ex-wife.
I can’t help but be concerned about the mentally ill who might own a gun. I represent numerous clients who can’t access mental health care on a regular basis, who have become homeless after going through a crisis that put them through a cycle of being 1) hospitalized or incarcerated, 2) put on medications, 3) stabilized, 4) released into the community, 5) functional for a while (but not getting healthcare), 6) decomposed, 7) homeless, and 8) put through the whole process over again.
No, I don't want to take away your guns. You may be sane. I own a gun and I have hunted. I was trained by the NRA, have served in the military, and have dealt with many situations involving violent people with violent histories. I want a rational discussion that seeks balance with a three-pronged approach of adequate security, rationale gun ownership, gun type oversight, and a comprehensive mental healthcare system.
I don't want to live in a police state, nor in a community where the psychologically challenged have easy access to a gun. The simplistic and shallow people hallmark portraitures and post them as their perceived reflection of truth and reality, which add nothing to the conversation.
The military, my own training, and my experience have taught me this truth: If psychologically disturbed people want to kill you, and want to do it with a gun, they usually will succeed, because the element of surprise trumps the men, women, or teachers with the gun in their holster, desk, or gun cabinet. (But yes, they can minimize the damage.)
The argument that they could do it just as easily with a car, knife, bomb, etc. is almost meritless. My training has also taught me that if those are their choices, they will be more likely to fail than if they use a gun. That is why most of us don't hunt with bombs, cars, knives, or poison. A gun is readily available, easy to use, quick, and efficiently lethal. That's why most psychopaths, the suicidal, the criminal, the mentally unstable, and the passionately enraged also hunt/kill with a gun. If a deranged, mentally ill, enraged person runs to his/her closet to pick something with which to kill you, he/she will probably pick the gun over a bomb, a knife, a bat, or some rat poisoning. That is the reality, people. If a few lives are saved every year because persons with a known proclivity to violence, or a troubled mental health history, are unable to purchase or obtain a gun (or because a person with a mental health challenge is able to access mental health care), that is a worthy goal, despite the fact that others would still die in gun-related violence.
No perfection on this issue can be achieved, because any such solution that tries to appease the extremes of either side would invariably be unduly ineffective, too intrusive, too expensive, or utterly tyrannical.
Loren M. Lambert © December 29, 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment