Holey Smokes
CD-R Athens Horse Party
Athens Pop
So this week everyone is freaking out about Athens pop because of the new Neutral Milk Hotel reunion, which is awesome, but I’ve got to take this opportunity to point out that the Athens pop scene is as strong as…
El Hollin is one of the best bands that ever came out of Athens.
10 New family Kale Späghetti.
2So, I’m having an argument with a friend about gun control and mental illness. It is based on an article in the Athens Banner-Herald about state lawmakers debating whether or not to relax gun laws for the mentally ill in GA.
My basic response to this was WHAT!?!!? The. Fuck.
This was my response…
First, as a psychology student, a mental health professional, a mental health user with a diagnosis, and just a person in general, I do not subscribe to the construction of mental distress as an “illness.” “Illness” may mean a lot of different things to different people, so how you interpret the word is up to each one of us, but I personally do not believe one person’s psychological affliction can be categorized into a medical illness. Why? Reason 1) the medical model decontextualizes the personal experience, reducing it to empty cookie-cutter definitions that are not explanatory at all. Reason 2) mental health diagnoses do not actually qualify as “diseases” according to medical standards. Medical diseases need “signs” and “symptoms”. Mental disorders only have “symptoms.”
Anyways, the reason why I’m focusing on the term is because it creates the dichotomy of normal vs. mentally ill. This has serious problems in the context of gun control:
First, as it was the case with your own experience, even though the doctors gave your brother a bunch of diagnoses, they had no idea about what he was actually doing with the knife. Hence, the institutional label of “mental illness” is not meaningful or helpful at all in determining who will actually commit violence. Even if people who are categorized “mentally ill” are legally prohibited from carrying guns, it will not decrease violent incidents.
Second, prohibiting guns only for people diagnosed with “mental illness” contributes to more forced mental health treatment. One of the implications of NY Safe Act was that parents and teachers are encouraged to “refer” their troubled children to treatment if they see fit. While that may sound altruistic, it is one-sided; those in power will be the ones who get to decide who is unhealthy, and can take the unwilling participant to professionals and institutions that are ultimately dehumanizing. It also expands state and federal databases of people with mental health diagnoses, even if you do not have a criminal record. This is, essentially, “psychiatric profiling” (See http://stoppsychiatricprofiling.org/ for more info). With this database, carrying a diagnosis increases the chances of you being suspected of committing a crime.
Related to the first and second, gun control only for people with MH diagnoses confirms the stigma that “mentally ill” people are dangerous. Statistics show that people diagnosed with “mental illness” are (5 times) more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators. Hence, again, gun control specific to MH users will not be effective. Besides, it would be plain cruel for an already stigmatized population to carry a heavier burden of others thinking that they are violent people.
I agree that this is a difficult question to answer. I’m glad you voiced your opinion, and I’m glad I got mine off of my chest, because lots of people are at stake and we need to be talking more about this.
This is all great info, Aki!
I’m not really advocating for the prohibition of guns to the mentally ill. More, that I think it should stay difficult. Currently, it is not impossible for a mentally ill person in GA to obtain a gun license. It is just more difficult than those with out the label. Which I DO have a problem with not only because of the stigma it creates, but also because I just personally feel it should be extremely difficult for ALL groups.
But I feel sad because everyone keeps reverting back to the very low statistics of the mentally ill who are dangerous but no one can provide any stats on the [what I presume to be] larger percentage of murderers who suffer from a mental illness.. which is kind of important to get a full picture of the issue at hand. Do you feel like this isn’t important to the issue? Maybe there is some disconnect here. I searched online and my school’s online databases and have found minimal and varied results. Some just revert back to the mentally ill not being dangerous statistics, one study published in the Journal of American Psychiatry said 90% of murderers in Sweden were mentally ill… But then a follow up study said that it wasn’t conclusive since many of them had been imprisoned for many years which clearly could create a lack of mental health. So, nothing conclusive for either side was found by my research.
You also didn’t really address my personal experiences/fears with mental illness. Almost everyone I know who suffers from any type of mental issue, myself included, goes through some type of down period where you aren’t really your typical self and are more likely to harm yourself or [potentially] others. When I get really down and go through an episode- I don’t believe I have any business owning a gun. Despite the fact of not being a violent person at all.
How can I support this (which I want to because people I love and trust think its important) when I myself am afflicted and don’t think it’s a good idea? Like I know the statistics, and I know myself, and even though the chance is statistically extremely low- I think I should NOT own a gun. Especially for my own safety! but for others as well.. because when you are not in control, you are really capable of anything. And that feeling of having no control over my mind is what scares me in the debate.
Also, another thing it is difficult to find information about, is if most killers are NOT mentally ill then what factor is it that separates those who kill from those who don’t? What is it in them that makes them cross a line that most people can’t even fathom?
My claim was that “mental illness” is not a meaningful label especially in the context of gun control. This does not translate into saying “killers are not mentally ill.” I would not even make the claim, because, as I said in the beginning, I don’t subscribe to mental distress being an “illness.” When a mental health professional determines someone to be “mentally ill,” there is inescapably a bias from the professional’s cultural values about the client’s characteristics. The diagnosis is hence a judgment, not a discovery of a “disease.”
What that means is that I don’t believe there is one line between normal people vs. the “mentally ill.” Nor do I believe that there is one line between normal people vs. murderers. You are not going to find any “factor” that inherently distinguishes one side from another. All of us can go into “down periods” where we are not our typical selves. So it makes no sense that one group who is labeled “mentally ill” have a hard time getting guns, while other people have an easier time. Because we are all dangerous with guns!
If you want information on how many homicide offenders are diagnosed “mentally ill”, here is some: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/198/6/485.long
Again, I would not take this to mean that XYZ% of murderers are “ill,” because there are all sorts of cultural, institutional and personal bias that go into the judgment of mental health diagnosis.
6 So, I’m having an argument with a friend about gun control and mental illness. It is based on an article in the Athens Banner-Herald about state lawmakers debating whether or not to relax gun laws for the mentally ill in GA.
My basic response to this was WHAT!?!!? The. Fuck.
This was my response…
First, as a psychology student, a mental health professional, a mental health user with a diagnosis, and just a person in general, I do not subscribe to the construction of mental distress as an “illness.” “Illness” may mean a lot of different things to different people, so how you interpret the word is up to each one of us, but I personally do not believe one person’s psychological affliction can be categorized into a medical illness. Why? Reason 1) the medical model decontextualizes the personal experience, reducing it to empty cookie-cutter definitions that are not explanatory at all. Reason 2) mental health diagnoses do not actually qualify as “diseases” according to medical standards. Medical diseases need “signs” and “symptoms”. Mental disorders only have “symptoms.”
Anyways, the reason why I’m focusing on the term is because it creates the dichotomy of normal vs. mentally ill. This has serious problems in the context of gun control:
First, as it was the case with your own experience, even though the doctors gave your brother a bunch of diagnoses, they had no idea about what he was actually doing with the knife. Hence, the institutional label of “mental illness” is not meaningful or helpful at all in determining who will actually commit violence. Even if people who are categorized “mentally ill” are legally prohibited from carrying guns, it will not decrease violent incidents.
Second, prohibiting guns only for people diagnosed with “mental illness” contributes to more forced mental health treatment. One of the implications of NY Safe Act was that parents and teachers are encouraged to “refer” their troubled children to treatment if they see fit. While that may sound altruistic, it is one-sided; those in power will be the ones who get to decide who is unhealthy, and can take the unwilling participant to professionals and institutions that are ultimately dehumanizing. It also expands state and federal databases of people with mental health diagnoses, even if you do not have a criminal record. This is, essentially, “psychiatric profiling” (See http://stoppsychiatricprofiling.org/ for more info). With this database, carrying a diagnosis increases the chances of you being suspected of committing a crime.
Related to the first and second, gun control only for people with MH diagnoses confirms the stigma that “mentally ill” people are dangerous. Statistics show that people diagnosed with “mental illness” are (5 times) more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators. Hence, again, gun control specific to MH users will not be effective. Besides, it would be plain cruel for an already stigmatized population to carry a heavier burden of others thinking that they are violent people.
I agree that this is a difficult question to answer. I’m glad you voiced your opinion, and I’m glad I got mine off of my chest, because lots of people are at stake and we need to be talking more about this.
6 
First and foremost, my heart goes out to those affected by the tragedy. Talks about gun control are absolutely important. I believe we also need to talk about our attitudes towards tragedies. We tend to presume that happiness and peace are the norm, when they do not necessarily match the realities in this society, and human life in general. “Mental illness” may be a convenient outlet for our confusion when things go awry, but the label may overshadow the complexities in navigating the terrible events of our times.
Even after a period of stability, serenity, successful recovery, soothe singing, smooth sailing, when you carry on so much weight, the ship will sink underwater, taking you down to the familiar depth of darkness.
Here I sink again, you think. All the times I held myself above the surface was just a sad attempt to look away from what’s at the bottom of the sea.
Even in times likes these, what does work remarkably well is knowing that there are people who have seen you fall, sink, rise above, and then back down; no matter where you were, they were always with you. no matter where you were, you were ok in their eyes.
being sad is ok.
being happy is ok.
being angry is ok.
I know you. I know the real you, and you are ok.
Privilege. Prejudice. Patriarchy. Political Correctness. However you may want to frame them, to me they are personal problems. They are problems perpetual and persistent, they never get “old” to me. Talking about them boils passion. Talking about them is petrifying. Taking about them scares the hell out of me. It is a threatening thing to talk about what matters to me. Threat clogs my throat. My voice vibrates. My heart pounds to its peak. After all, when I talk about them, it is my very own being that I fight for. As you laugh at me sweat and struggle while you keep your “calm” and “rational” composure, I assume that this is a joke to you. Or an intellectual exercise. Perhaps a sensitivity training. But in the words of R. D. Laing’s patient:
“You are arguing in order to have the pleasure of triumphing over me. At best you win an argument. At worst you lose an argument. I am arguing in order to preserve my existence.”
No matter how deep of a rut you are in, how strong of a storm twirls you, how much rust coats your wheels, you will never cease to be an inspiration to me.
Because when I couldn’t get through each night without crying to a constructed truth that I do not belong here, it was your words, your lies, your strokes, songs and sighs, the silent warmth you sent from your eyes, that shook me out of hating myself completely.
