BvBPL
Pour Decision Maker
This week, the Senate, following similar action by the House, voted to repeal an Obama-era rule blocking gun sales to the mentally ill. The Obama rule was put in place after the Sandy Hook shootings and was intended to address gun violence perpetrated by the mentally ill. The rule banned the some seventy-five thousand people who receive Social Security benefits through an assigned representative from purchasing guns. Essential this targeted the population who cannot be trusted to control their own finances. Psychiatrists, civil libertarians, and mental health advocacy groups rallied against the rule when it was purposed by the Obama administration, citing concerns about the effectiveness of the rule, due process concerns, and painting the mentally ill as being violent.
Now, two psychiatrists are celebrating the repeal of the rule and bringing to attention the importance of making rules based upon evidence, not momentary sensationalism. Jeffery Swanson and Paul Appelbaum have both come out as advocates for repealing the Obama rule because the rule was based on bad science. Swanson and Appelbaum both cite studies showing that the mentally ill are not any more of a danger than people without mental illness when it comes to guns. Furthermore, the target population, people whose mental illness is of a nature that it affects their financial competency to such a degree that they require Social Security payment by representation, are not a class of people at high risk for causing violence. Where only 3-5% of gun violence can be attributed to mental illness and where the class of parties affected by this rule are not a risk group for violence, the rule is not constructed to serve the purpose of reducing explosive gun violence. It was overly broad in its catchment and categorized thousands of people did not pose a threat to themselves or others as potentially harmful.
In addition to the rule not being well-designed to reducing gun violence against others, the Swanson and Appelbaum both have concerns about the general treatment of the mentally ill in the greater debate about gun control. Where a small fraction of gun violence can be attributed to mental illness, focusing on mental illness as a source of gun violence disingenuously paints those suffering with mental health concerns as a violent threat to the greater society. As mental health advocates work to remove the stigma around mental illness in the general public, using the mentally ill as scapegoats for a broader gun violence program is a step backward.
Finally, both psychiatrists raise civil rights concerns over the removal of constitutional rights from the mentally ill without due process. The rule removed a constitutional right from a whole class of people without adjudication and without sufficient evidence that the rule would be effective. In an America where the civil right of individuals seem to be under fire, we need to advocate strongly that due process be observed, particularly for more vulnerable individuals.
American desperately needs to address its gun violence problems, but falsely claiming that mental illness is behind those problems will achieve nothing. A holistic approach must be utilized, rather than demonizing vulnerable elements of the population for the sake of sensationalism.
Now, two psychiatrists are celebrating the repeal of the rule and bringing to attention the importance of making rules based upon evidence, not momentary sensationalism. Jeffery Swanson and Paul Appelbaum have both come out as advocates for repealing the Obama rule because the rule was based on bad science. Swanson and Appelbaum both cite studies showing that the mentally ill are not any more of a danger than people without mental illness when it comes to guns. Furthermore, the target population, people whose mental illness is of a nature that it affects their financial competency to such a degree that they require Social Security payment by representation, are not a class of people at high risk for causing violence. Where only 3-5% of gun violence can be attributed to mental illness and where the class of parties affected by this rule are not a risk group for violence, the rule is not constructed to serve the purpose of reducing explosive gun violence. It was overly broad in its catchment and categorized thousands of people did not pose a threat to themselves or others as potentially harmful.
In addition to the rule not being well-designed to reducing gun violence against others, the Swanson and Appelbaum both have concerns about the general treatment of the mentally ill in the greater debate about gun control. Where a small fraction of gun violence can be attributed to mental illness, focusing on mental illness as a source of gun violence disingenuously paints those suffering with mental health concerns as a violent threat to the greater society. As mental health advocates work to remove the stigma around mental illness in the general public, using the mentally ill as scapegoats for a broader gun violence program is a step backward.
Finally, both psychiatrists raise civil rights concerns over the removal of constitutional rights from the mentally ill without due process. The rule removed a constitutional right from a whole class of people without adjudication and without sufficient evidence that the rule would be effective. In an America where the civil right of individuals seem to be under fire, we need to advocate strongly that due process be observed, particularly for more vulnerable individuals.
American desperately needs to address its gun violence problems, but falsely claiming that mental illness is behind those problems will achieve nothing. A holistic approach must be utilized, rather than demonizing vulnerable elements of the population for the sake of sensationalism.
Swanson said:
