Nothing
is Solved
By
Lin Collette
Not
being a Charlestown resident, I’m not qualified to speak about the Town Council
Troika – Dan Slattery, George Tremblay, and Tom Gentz -- that dismisses and
ridicules anything they don’t feel applies to Charlestown. Their naiveté, obtuseness, and ostrich-like
behavior speaks for itself.
I do
feel, though, that I’m qualified to speak about two events that filled the
local airwaves last week: the murder of
a woman on a RIPTA bus in Portsmouth and the murder/suicide of a grandmother
and her grandchildren.
Or
that RIPTA should have done something to prevent this from happening. Possibly.
Drivers don’t have many options to control misbehaving passengers except
for possibly expelling them or, if it’s possible, call the cops to arrest them. On Facebook a suggestion was made that
drivers should be armed with pepper spray so that they can subdue
miscreants. Of course someone
immediately pointed out that pepper spray on a crowded bus wreaks more havoc
than just subduing an offender.
It’s
possible that few could have seen this incident coming, at least at that time
and place. It wasn’t a random
incident—it was a specific domestic violence incident where a violent
ex-husband stalked his former spouse and knifed her to death. There is, of course, the fact that said
ex-husband is a felon with 20 convictions to his debit. And one may legitimately ask—why on earth is
he still free to roam around. But that
is a question for another forum.
However,
a violent end to that relationship was almost inevitable given James’ apparent
hatred of his ex-wife. For some reason,
her fears seem to have dismissed by authorities and we have seen the result.
As
for the events in North Stonington, once again much chest beating is taking
place. How could this happen? Where did she get the gun? How can we stop mentally ill people from
getting guns? We need a list of mentally
ill people to keep watch on them. This was the NRA’s argument after Newtown,
and I’ve heard people say this as well.
Better yet, why not pen up all mentally ill
people in institutions to protect us from them?
Oh
really? Didn’t we do that before, when
those with mental illness were routinely institutionalized, sometimes until
death, ostensibly for their own safety (and society’s) but also to prevent them
from having unpopular political and social views or to gain control of
wealth. Even gays and lesbians were
institutionalized in order to ‘cure’ them.
Times have changed.
Or
have they?
Are
the mentally ill any more violent than the rest of the population? Research says not. The Institute of Medicine in 2006 stated that
"although studies suggest a link between mental illnesses and violence,
the contribution of people with mental illnesses to overall rates of violence
is small, and further, the magnitude of the relationship is greatly exaggerated
in the minds of the general population.”
And, the American Psychiatric Association has stated that the vast
majority of violent people are not mentally ill.
 |
| The Fort Hood shooter - shot 13 people on a military base out of political motivation, sympathy for Al Qaeda |
Studies indicate that those with serious
mental illness are involved in only about 4 percent of violent crime, but are
11 times more likely than the general population to be the victims of violent crime.
As
for young males with schizophrenia—who have figured most prominently in recent
mass killings—the National Institute of Mental Health says that the risk of
violence among those with schizophrenia is small and more often is
self-directed—10% of those with schizophrenia attempt suicide.
The
rates of violence among women with mental illness are even lower, making the
North Stonington incident an anomaly.
Unfortunately, however, the perception persists, thanks to wall to wall
media coverage of mass killings and the media’s insistence on finding a
‘reason.’ Sometimes there isn’t a
reason. And that is hard to take. At any rate, the vast majority of violent
acts committed by those with acute mental illness are against
themselves—self-mutilation, suicide, and other self-destructive behaviors.
As
for stigma against the mentally ill in general, the image of the mentally ill
is colored by those we see wandering the streets in cities like Providence,
especially in Kennedy Plaza, outside the Providence Center or other mental
health centers, and panhandlers. Those
of us with mental illness don’t want to come out of the closet because we know
we’ll be tarred with that brush—the mumblers, the wild-eyed, the alcohol-laden,
the stinking, dirty-clothed, foul-mouthed beggars we see daily. Deep down we fear we are them too.
Even
after I started receiving Social Security Disability benefits, it took me
months to finally agree to get a RIPTA Disabled bus pass. I didn’t want bus drivers to class me as one
of “them,” just another Kennedy Plaza habitué.
I too have shrunk away from the mentally ill—those who function less
well than I, and I have made the same judgments. Even I, so comfortable with the fact of my
illness, am afraid. No wonder more
‘normal’ people are.
As
for the North Stonington woman’s method of murder/suicide, people will demand
answers on how she got the gun. Demand
gun buy-backs. Insist on background
checks. Both of these have merits and in
theory do work, but there are limitations.
As Will pointed out in his article, it’s probably unlikely that those
bent on real mayhem are going to turn in their weapons for a Wal-Mart gift card
or some other enticement, especially if the perpetrator’s real aim is to kill
himself and take as many people as he can with him (especially if it’s family).
Background
checks really only work if you’re going to buy a weapon from a legitimate
source, like Wal-Mart maybe or a gun shop.
Even so, background checks do provide a kind of ‘time out’ where the
buyer can maybe rethink the purchase.
And it does make it possible for authorities to be alerted that someone
with no legal right to buy a weapon is trying to do so.
 |
| From gun-buy back in Providence |
And,
as Will stated, through buyback programs there is the potential for parents to
rethink their having weapons in a home with children. Face it—any clever child who wants something
bad enough will find a way to get it, no matter how well you’ve secured
it. Just ask any parent with a teenager
caught drinking.
Still,
I can probably find a gun at anytime and anywhere without having to have a
background check. I’ve tried it in the
past—thankfully I didn’t follow through. So a national database of crazy people like me
wouldn’t be too useful.
I was actually thinking about this on
Wednesday night while I was watching the always informative program “Lords of
War” on NatGeo. For those who haven’t
seen it, it’s about a gun business.
Specifically an antique and vintage weapon business that travels the
country looking for the best, usually historically valuable weapons, buys them
from the owner, often tests runs them, and then resells to the highest bidder
in an auction held that weekend. The
auction bidders are not just present under the tent—they’re phone and internet
bidders. Where’s the background check?
One
episode aired last Wednesday night specifically interested me because one of
the items for sale was a Tommy gun—you know, the submachine guns used in the
1920s and 1930s by gangsters and rumrunners, and later by the US
Government. The Tommy gun was in full
working order. Imagine—anyone thinking
about committing an act of mass violence seeing this for sale in a catalog or
on an auction site, purchasing the gun, and taking it to a movie theater, a
school, anywhere.
The
thought is horrific.
But
you don’t need a Tommy gun to wreak havoc.
And, in my pessimistic opinion all the gun education in the world, all
the pleading in the world, all the tragedies in the world are probably not
going to stop most gun violence as it exists now. Heck, NOTHING will stop violence.
We
are violent animals. We are quick to
anger, we are quick to find temporary solutions to long-term problems—we hit
first and talk later. Never mind the
consequences. Weapons are
everywhere. As I sit writing this I look
around and I see, possibly, 50 weapons readily at hand. Including my hands.
And
I think back to a man I knew who threatened 20 cops and his mother with a
machete and held them at bay for hours—until the cops shot him dead when he
lunged at them one last time. Much to
the mother’s anger. But faced with a
machete wielding man intent on killing everyone, what realistically can you do
to save everyone? Not a good solution
but, at the time and not knowing the actual situation, possibly the only one in
that instance. Of course, had the man
been wielding a Glock , the outcome could have been far worse.
So
what can we do, realistically? A total
ban on guns isn’t the answer and, I think, unnecessary. I would like to see more restrictions on what
can be purchased and by whom. And I’d
like to see a way to really suppress the underground gun market. What real purpose could the ordinary person
have in owning a working Tommy gun? Or
Uzi? Or AK-47? Even if the self-defense card is played,
there’s far more potential for an innocent person to be harmed by these weapons
than the proverbial burglar.
I’d
like to see an end to violent video games and media that promote firearms and
other weapons as the only way to solve problems and resist tyranny. Why do young people immediately shoot their
way out of disputes? Other
industrialized nations seem to have much lower levels of gun violence. Why can’t we?
 |
| "The Constitution is not a suicide pact" - Abraham Lincoln |
Oh,
I forgot—it’s the ‘Don’t Tread on Me’ mentality, the frontiersman’s need to
protect his womenfolk and livestock from marauding invaders. It’s the insistence on individual liberty
versus the greater good. The
unwillingness these days to think beyond one’s rights and what’s good for
me. Common sense versus hyper-patriotic
hyperbole. The ‘my way or the highway’
versus ‘how can I help?’
My
solution to the violence problem then?
A
better idea? Ban humans. I actually do agree with the cliché: Guns
don’t kill people, people kill people.
Make people take responsibility.
Take plea bargains off the table when dealing with violent crime unless
it’s self-defense. Perpetrators should
do serious time for violent crime. Aha-a
slogan in the making. If you’re worried
about overcrowded prisons, swap out non-violent drug offenders. I’d rather deal with a stoned kid than with a
guy with 3 or more convictions for violent felonies.
How
to solve the RIPTA bus incident? It’s
difficult to effectively police buses.
But keeping violent criminals and predators in jail would help. While not knowing the facts behind the
domestic dispute that spawned the murder, I firmly believe that more attention
could have been paid to the safety of the ex-wife. And if this man made threats and was indeed
stalking her, he should have been jailed and should have been given real
time. Domestic violence and stalking are
crimes that are often dismissed as serious.
Until something like this happens.
The
North Stonington incident begs more and different action. Again, I don’t know the backstory to this,
nor do I want to. The family deserves
whatever privacy they can still find to deal with this awful tragedy. However, the grandmother should have gotten
better psychiatric care that might have prevented this.
Maybe
alarm cues could have been better read.
Unfortunately
the recent sequestration and resulting budget cuts will certainly cut funding
for mental health treatment to those most in need of it. As it is demand far outstrips supply. Privately funded treatment is difficult to
get as well. A number of insurers
restrict therapy sessions and the types of medication one can receive, and
often charger higher co-pays than for ‘regular’ medical treatment.
In
my own case, I pay a higher co-pay for my therapist visits and for my monthly
session with my psychiatrist, although I’m fortunate in that my meds are not
that expensive. The $200 I pay monthly
for therapy takes a deep bite out of my monthly SSDI benefits.
If a
gun shop sold her the gun, maybe action can be taken but if they complied with
all regulations, what can be done aside from an outright ban? Although I see no use for guns aside from
subsistence hunting, I don’t want to go so far as to seriously suggest an
outright ban on all guns. Even if guns
were banned, one can get plenty of ideas by watching the Investigation
Discovery. Or any crime drama like CSI
or even an innocuous British mystery shown on PBS like ‘The Midsomer
Murders.’ Recent episodes featured
murder by poison, poisonous mushrooms, electrocution via a deadly alarm system,
a push down the stairs, and falling bookshelves. Gotta love that British imagination.
Yet
two months after Newtown, we are still having the same arguments, incidents,
and so on.
Some
solutions to the problem?—better treatment for mentally ill people like me,
anti-violence education perhaps, better responses to domestic violence and stalking….
Those are the areas that may have some impact.
However, unless we genetically alter humans to remove violent impulses,
there really are no solutions to gun violence, let alone any kind of violence,
that will have any teeth—unless we change our attitudes. Unless we truly understand that there are
better options than beating, knifing, or shooting our enemies. Perhaps it’s possible for us to follow the
lead of other nations who have vastly different attitudes about weapons and the
results to prove their efficacy. (of
course I am not referring to dictatorships like North Korea)
It
would be wonderful if all the symbolic gestures—council resolutions, mayoral
appeals, vigils, teddy bears and memorials—would finally mean something. But my
pessimism says that won’t happen. The
lessons learned from Columbine, the Sikh Temple, Aurora, Tucson, Newtown will
be forgotten and little will be done that actually is effective. Until the next incident. And the next.
And the same questions will be asked again. When will we ever learn?
Lin Collette is an artist and writer living in Central Falls. See her work by clicking here.
Lin Collette is an artist and writer living in Central Falls. See her work by clicking here.
