Metal Health

Our first inventions, we are told, were weapons, and the first human groups were organized by men to more effectively kill both animals and members of other human groups. In Stanley Kubrick’s film 2001: A Space Odyssey, the film begins with a scene showing a hominid creature suddenly realizing that a large bone can be used as a weapon to kill another member of his species.

The story of Cain slaying Abel is also an example of how humanity has its flaws and its mental weaknesses.

Our evolution of the human culture follows more than one path. God has seen it within his good grace to offer us choices. We have labeled it good and evil. However in a more Gnostic sense we can say that human beings can choose what brings order and sanctity in their lives, or they can invite chaos and spiritual bankruptcy which turns them into amoral zombies that can be triggered by the social crises that we deal with every day.

The choice is ours to either organize relations in ways that reward violence and domination. Or, we can also recognize our essential interconnection with one another and the rest of the living world.

There needs to be an effort to support mentally unhealthy individuals and for those that have already demonstrated violent and dominant behavior. We must develop effective methods of correction and rehabilitation.

It should not be just lip service; it should definitely be an objective worth pursuing. Too many people get hurt, and of course there is a body count which we cannot ignore.

It is a body count that exists only because we were not aware of someone that was crying out to be heard or otherwise understood.

When shooting tragedies take place like the recent shooting at UCC in Roseburg Oregon, the arguments all can be corralled into one topic that becomes tiresome and attempts at exploiting all tragic shootings as political footballs for the gun control issue.

Throughout the day, the issues of gun control were repeated over and over again after thirteen souls were snuffed out at Umpqua Community College. There was also the occasional “gun free zone” argument that all places that are designated as “gun free” are literally fishbowls ready to be fired into by the usual lone gunman with an axe to grind.

While all of these arguments are valid, they are becoming tired rationalizations that do nothing to solve the problem. Turning a “strategic suicide” by cop into a political ping pong match has aggravated me and the attempts at infringing upon a constitutional right that has created a need for me to ask if there is any alternative solution?

You can’t infringe upon a constitutional right, you can’t create a situation that actually intimidates people who have an aversion to guns and you can’t create a fishbowl situation.

There have been numerous examples that have been cited where those who have gone on shooting rampages killing classmates, co-workers and family members often take their own lives or hope that with enough bodies hitting the floor, will warrant them the golden ticket for a suicide given by the police.

Another unfortunate fact is that we have also seen examples of shooters that have their health records reported on the news and we are told everything about their mental profile –and whether or not they were taking SSRI’s.

This topic was approached on Ground Zero when it was reported these antidepressants like Paxil have been found to be ineffective in treating depression in young adults aged 18-24 years of age.

The SSRI argument can also be used as a reason for a “witch hunt” which also creates an air of intimidation and paranoia in the populace.

In the conspiracy fringe circles it appears that the popular argument is that we must remove these drugs and this is a solution that solves the issue of gun violence.

It may put a small dent in all of it – but the effectiveness of removal of such medication puts in harm’s way those who use them without difficulty. We also must understand that there are plenty of potential shooters that did not have any violent tendencies and in most cases were not even suicidal before they started treatment with their antidepressant medication.

President Obama even commented on mental illness and how it plays a part in these mass shootings. He lamented that the whole situation has become routine —the conversation becomes an empty and futile attempt to deal with the problem that is at hand.

However his comments are also empty as the blood wasn’t even dry in Roseburg, Oregon before the President started pushing a gun control agenda.

It is a routine speech for a frightening and tragic reality.

So again the argument of mental health is the core detail that gets buried in the gun control rhetoric – it is our base concern but there is no attempt to analyze the issue of the mental health crisis and giving it a gun for its final treatment is certainly an even bigger mistake.

Under a federal law enacted in 1968, an individual is prohibited from buying or possessing firearms for life if he/she has been “adjudicated as a mental defective” or “committed to a mental institution.”

A person is “adjudicated as a mental defective” if a court—or other entity having legal authority to make adjudications—has made a determination that an individual, as a result of mental illness:

1) Is a danger to himself or to others;

2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs;

3) Is found insane by a court in a criminal case or incompetent to stand trial, or not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

A person is “committed to a mental institution” if that person has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution by a court or other lawful authority. This expressly excludes voluntary commitment. It should be noted, however, that federal law now allows states to establish procedures for mentally ill individuals to restore their right to possess and purchase firearms.

There is a joke usually made by people who say “I am about to lose it so you should hide all sharp objects from the room.”

The joke indicates that a person who is distraught may just grab a sharp object and harm someone. Replace that sharp object with a gun and it becomes a political argument and an attempt to infringe upon the second amendment.

But should it?

The argument that SSRI’s cause shooters to open fire on a playground – is an argument about keeping guns away from those who are mentally ill or who are incapable of functioning either with or without anti-depressants.

In the case of Jared Loughner, the young shooter that opened fire at a Tucson, Arizona political gathering for Gabrielle Giffords. The media had reported that Loughner was unstable. He would blurt out strange sentences during his classes in college.

In his diary, he had written that he believed that he was a victim of trauma-based mind control. He said in his videos that he was unable to trust the government because he believed he was a sleepwalker or a sleeper.

The mainstream news claimed that he was rambling, a schizophrenic paranoid who became dissociative.

In his own words, Loughner wrote in his diaries that he believed that “sleepwalking is the act or state of walking, eating, or performing other motor acts while asleep, of which one is unaware upon awakening. I’m a sleepwalker – who turns off the alarm clock.”

He felt he was walking along in a lucid dream state. He didn’t know if he was dreaming or if this was reality. His remarks sound similar to past alleged MK Ultra assassins that were programmed into hypnotic states in order to commit acts of terror.

Loughner was called a loner, a pothead, a liberal, a communist and a Tea Party member. He became a political pawn for both the left and right wing.

No one even bothered to say that Loughner was a man who had many demons buried deep in his unconscious mind. He had developed a dark mental illness that friends and relatives say was unbearable.

In 2011, Loughner was declared unfit to stand trial for his crimes. As CNN reported at the time, “U.S. District Judge Larry Burns said he based his decision on two recent court-ordered mental evaluations of Loughner at a federal hospital in Springfield, Missouri.” Loughner was sent to a federal psychiatric center for four months where he was to undergo drug treatment and testing to render him fit to stand trial.

Slate reported in May 2001: “The Supreme Court has also allowed the government to medicate incompetent defendants against their will if the feds can demonstrate four things: a compelling reason for medicating, a good chance the drugs will work, proof that the drugs are necessary, and a lack of other options.”

The harsh treatment and deprogramming can last up to six months if need be and if the suspect does not regain competency he will be committed to a medical institution. Nearly one quarter of those who are forced into treatment don’t recover. Some die.

Loughner did not die after his federal ‘rehabilitation’ and was sentenced to life in prison without parole.

Is this the future of the American correctional institutions? Is the procedure of mental torture in order to force competency an ethical thing to do?

His mental state was obvious, there was no intervention, there was no counselor who stepped in, and there were no attempts at putting him in a place where he can be observed and be kept from harming himself and others.

No gun law would have stopped what happened with Jared Loughner. No infringement of the second amendment would have stopped the shooting – but intervention and critical treatment for extreme mental illness may have helped, and the treatments did not necessarily have to include SSRI’s.

The drugging torture after the fact puts into question whether or not his cognitive liberty was infringed upon.

The reason that this topic is necessary is because we are now living in the era of what Phillip K. Dick talked about in his Dystopian novels. We are capable now of splitting the consciousness by mere propaganda and predictive programming alone.

Using enhancements to create a technological terror and a drug-induced temporal stoppage is similar to lobotomizing people in order to turn them into impressionable zombies.

That is why keen observance and intervention should be of the utmost importance as we see that our environment dictates what normal is, and when those who do not measure up act out, we give our hollow political response about how the gun is the culprit and not the person who may be in need of empathy, understanding and therapy.

While I am not necessary an advocate of rounding people up, and I am certainly not an advocate of pre-crime or thought crime analysis -shouldn’t there be an effort to understand and even listen to those that seem to be showing signs of being alienated or even showing signs of agitation or trouble?

Could we go back to evaluating the state of mind of someone and if they are considered dangerous or psychotic —isn’t there a restraining order or court order that can keep them from participating in the “fishbowl” environment that seems to be the popular target of the shooters we read about or hear about?

Wouldn’t it be prudent to have a counselor or even a court determine if a gun owner has a history of use or has threatened someone with the use of a deadly weapon?

Is there a way to investigate a pattern of prior conduct of violent behavior with or without the use of a gun? Is it wrong to look into the background of someone who has threatened a child with bodily harm or serious injury – and decide if a gun is something that should not be anywhere near the individual?

Does the individual have a history of suicide attempts – would that be a reason to flag a person who has a gun? How about an SSRI user that still is having problems with depression? Should it be a required procedure that we advise them that they need to be cleared or helped before they can get their guns back?

Wouldn’t it also be prudent to investigate the possibility that those who struggle with mental health issues can have access to ammunition, knives, or any other implements of harm?

Could we require that all people before legally purchasing a firearm attend a gun safety class where those who may pose a danger can be evaluated and prevented from using a gun without necessary safety?

This way a gun permit or an eligibility certificate would have more value and would also be a rite of passage as well as a constitutional right.

These ideas are not fool proof by any means, but evaluating mental health is not unconstitutional.

It is a matter of public safety.

Text – Check out Ground Zero Radio with Clyde Lewis Live Nightly @ http://www.groundzeromedia.org