Is It Time Yet?

The massacre of seventeen innocent lives at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, the worst school shooting since Sandy Hook, has again left the country reeling and outraged.  The debate’s predictable and angry battle lines have been drawn, of course, following each side’s dogma and with the added twist of clear and quantifiable missteps and underreactions by law enforcement and social welfare authorities that might well have prevented the rampage.

The 19 year old shooter, Nikolas Cruz, is the poster child for who should probably never be allowed to own, touch, or come anywhere near a firearm.  That he was able to legally purchase and possess an AR-15, among other weapons, following more than thirty police contacts for violent outbursts, property damage, self-harming behaviors and threats of self-harm, with reporting officers and welfare agencies noting his mental illness and emotional disturbances speaks volumes about shortcomings in Florida law and federal background checks that cleared the way for his gun ownership.  That he was expelled by the high school he later attacked for severe behavior issues that included bringing ammunition onto school property fell off the radar, and his social media postings that “I wanna shoot people with my AR-15” and “I’m going to be a professional school shooter” led nowhere.  Nor did a direct report to the FBI, made in early January by someone close to Cruz, of fears he was dangerous and a potential school shooter.   

Also predictably, the debate quickly turned into one of “guns and gun laws vs. mental illness” as a cause of the carnage; Cruz’s (now) obvious emotional disturbances seem to make the case that the issue is one about the lack of action on, and treatment options for, people suffering from mental illnesses and takes the focus off the widespread availability of firearms to people who should not have them in the first place.  Focusing on mental health is a deliberate displacement of attention and ignores that the overwhelming majority of people with mental illness are not dangerous and never will be, and that mental illness for most is temporary, non-debilitative, and rather easily treated. 

Whatever psychiatric diagnoses Cruz may have had are unclear; it has been reported in various outlets that he may have fallen on the autism spectrum disorder, and possibly suffered from attention deficit disorder and/or obsessive compulsive disorder.  Because he was so young and almost all of his early interventions and treatment happened while he was a juvenile, learning the full extent of his psychiatric history may not be entirely possible.  But here is where relying on simple explanations that “he was mentally ill” fall short and threaten the overwhelming majority of people with the same or similar diagnoses.  Those with spectrum disorders, ADD, and OCD (if reports are true) are not necessarily any more or less dangerous than anyone else.  In fact, if you work for a sizable police department, or have contact with a fairly large number of police officers even from other agencies, you have worked next to a cop with autism, ADD, or OCD, guaranteed.  You have brother and sister officers struggling with depressive disorders and anxiety, guaranteed.  And you have gone care-to-car or sat next to fellow officers whose mental health and emotional stability is pharmacologically supported, without question.  In fact, maybe that’s you now, or you and even me sometime in the future.  We can never know for sure.

Placing the focus on “mental illness” is stigmatizing and dangerous.  As we’ve written before:     

“Our fear is that, in the rush to figure out how to keep guns out of the hands of the truly dangerous, the rights and privacy of those who might suffer from mental illness but present no threat whatsoever will be trampled out of fear and overreaction. We are concerned about how vaguely the term “mentally ill” is tossed about in the current discussion, and that how mental illness is perceived and what it really is become confused.  And we worry about the unintended consequences of poorly considered legislation, written by well-meaning if sometimes uninformed (or politically driven) lawmakers.  Done wrong, it might drive those who could benefit most from receiving care away out of fear they might lose their privacy or certain rights.  Many mental illnesses are very manageable - curable even - but patients need to be able to freely and confidently access care.

The extent and manner of the government’s prerogative to regulate guns and gun ownership is a debate that isn’t going away any time soon and how to do so with respect for the mentally ill among us is a crucial component of that debate.  Law enforcement must be an active, informed participant in that discussion.”

Still predictably, as one side clamors for a renewed discussion on guns and gun control, the other repeats its mantra that “now is not the time.”

But now IS the time, and waiting for a better time is waiting for the next Lanza, or Loughner, or Holmes, or Kazmierczak, or Mateen, or Paddock, or Cruz, or… well, you get the point.  The next name will spark the next debate, and the next round of “now is not the time…”

Now IS the time.

And yes, it’s entirely a GUN CONTROL DEBATE we’re talking about here, not a debate about mental health (which will only demonize and deflect) or about dropped balls at various levels (you know heads are already rolling on that).  It’s about gun control, so maybe it’s time to reassess what that means, in reality and our common understanding.

In our polarized and polarizing media culture gun rights supporters and activists have come to understand “gun control” as synonymous with “blanket prohibition” and/or “mass confiscation” but, somehow, the political right’s most feared and loathed presidential administration of modern history failed to even try forced confiscation of firearms or to prohibit basic gun rights.  The reality is that polls continuously indicate the vast majority of American citizens – including gun owners and even gun rights advocates – favor stricter laws governing ownership, use, and limits on firearms, more complete and comprehensive background checks, and stronger enforcement of existing laws.  More than 70% of Americans express strong support for the Second Amendment (meaning even a good number of liberals and the left leaning, when you consider there are some on the right who do not support a strong Second Amendment).

Background checks, restrictions on who can own and/or possess firearms and where, limits on the type and number of weapons owned, the type and frequency of training gun owners should have, and the laws establishing these standards (and their enforcement) are ALL gun control.  Gun control can be synonymous with responsible and widespread ownership of firearms, while setting strict standards for gun owners and limits on who should not be among their ranks.   

Don’t like what I’m saying?  Consider this, again from our own previous writing:

“While Second Amendment scholars, politicians, and judges debate historical context, the framer’s intent, and even the placement of commas and their consequence…. the final rendition (of the Second Amendment) ratified by the states and authenticated by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, reads “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”), I’ve always felt the central debate centers on the question of, “What did they mean by ‘well-regulated’?  What can, or should, we regulate with regard to firearms and their ownership, and how do we go about it in a way that respects the fundamental right ‘of the people to keep and bear arms” while protecting society from those who cannot be trusted to bear them responsibly?”  Those questions of regulation are at the center of the most current debate.” 

These questions remain at the center of the debate, and will shape future policy and law.  Don’t think the political hotbox of today – fired up by a controversial and hugely unpopular president and administration, swelling pushback against social conservatism, a generation sick of violence and mass murder taken for granted as some kind of a “price of freedom” – won’t drive change tomorrow that will reshape long accepted attitudes and beliefs we take for granted, put judges and justices on benches who are far more open to a liberal rethinking of what “well-regulated” means and how it can be applied, and rule on future restrictions that many in the gun rights lobby will find untenable.  Unless, of course, they’ve had a hand in the discussion of what “well-regulated” means and how it will be enforced.

“Now is not the time” for a discussion is no longer going to be tolerated, nor should it.  Now IS the time, and responsible, intelligent gun owners need to be a part of it, setting aside old dogma with a view to real solutions.  Now IS the time, and the fields of law enforcement and mental health need to work in concert to lead a REAL discussion, with minds open to creativity and learning.

Frankly, the time is now for intelligent debate and solutions, based on empirical, well-grounded facts, and divorced from politics and hyperbole.